If I'm right, in the US there is no government funding for faith-based schools,most of which are Catholic. In Australia, however, all schools, whether government or faith-based, are eligible for some level of public funding, providing their curriculum and standards are acceptable to their respective State Ministers of Education. Obviously, government schools are funded 100% by State governments (who have this responsibility) and this amount is topped up by the Federal government. Poor Catholic schools, and most Catholic schools educate a cross-section of the population - few have endowments - are funded by State and Federal governments to a total of about 80% that received by government schools.

Religious education (i.e. the religion classes taught in the school), however, is not funded by the government; RE is in the other 20% that is collected in school fees. Wealthier non-government schools (e.g. Anglican grammar schools) of course receive a lesser proportion of government funding.

The question of whether it is constitutional to fund non-government schools - overwhelmingly Catholic schools, which educate about 23% of the total school population - was taken up by the High Court in 1980, and the case against funding these schools was defeated 6-1 by the bench.

A country's history and culture must be taken into account when considering the relationship between government and religion. It's not a simple matter of justice vs injustice.

Now you are arguing against the separation of State and Church, and for the Tyranny of the Majority.

http://en.wikipedia....of_the_majority

Do you think so? It seems something of a leap to suggest this, I think. I'll need to give it more thought.

That is absolutely the right attitude, thank you!!

with an attitude like that we can begin to have an intellectually honest discussion

it does not mean that you are right or that I am right

,I know I have being wrong many times in the past, and I operate under the assumption that I will be wrong again, I am under no illusion that i have attained perfection. It is refreshing to see some one with the same attitude

"Do you think so? It seems something of a leap to suggest this, I think. I'll need to give it more thought."

what an elegant statement, with in the context of a discussion,.

That is all I ask, and should you decide I am wrong and try to convince me of that fact, I promise to do the same

The tyranny of the Majority and the tyranny of the minority

Both concepts have merit

We all know the results that the tyranny of the majority can have as were apparent in Nazi Germany

on the other hand we are all aware of the dangers that oligarchies have.

we need to be protected from each other,and from our selves, there is no doubt about that

That is why we have laws and a constitution

The founding Father thought about that, and come with an elegant solution,

Separation of Church and state, ( they them selves were victims of of religiousness persecution as manifested by the Tyranny of the majority, and one of the reasons why they immigrated to the new world)

and were painfully aware of the dangers of oligarchical rule , that is why they developed a governing system of Checks and Balances

Now we are trying to dismantle these checks and balances that have worked .for as so well for hundreds of years,

in the guise of expediency,

Do you think it is wise?

I don't.

Many people could argue that a religious organization, e.g. the Daughters of Charity, a Catholic nursing order, can't fail to transmit religious values in a favorable light through their services, and this is a form of propagation; however, governments don't usually accept that argument. There are signs that this could change, however, and crucifixes may have to be removed from walls and crosses from the nuns' apparel. This may be regarded as a breakthrough for secularization, but I'm not sure whose or what rights are protected as a result or how it would contribute to people's freedoms.

This, I would argue, is an interference with those nuns' freedom of religion. I thought my last post really answered that (nicely Jesuitical though it was!).

The individual taxpayer has no rights; maybe he should have, but in practice he has none. This (going way off topic here)is where our modern so-called democracies are not really democracies at all.

"This, I would argue, is an interference with those nuns' freedom of religion"

No it's not,The nuns have every right to practice their religion as long as they don't use tax payer money to do so.

" I thought my last post really answered that "

Your last post answered nothing of the short, it made as much sense as this post.

"The individual taxpayer has no rights; maybe he should have, but in practice he has none."

Of course he/she does, they are described in the constitution, if the taxpayer fails to exercise them it is his/ her fault.

I'm having difficulty following your arguments, Sirineou, but have picked on this post to deal with.

If a nun wears a crucifix, is she using Government money to do so?

This forum is not restricted to the USA, and references to 'the constitution' are meaningless unless put into the right national context.

To suggest that the individual taxpayer has any real option to exercise his rights is living in a dream world. Yes, there are such things as ombudsmen, I know, but they have relatively little impact.

The Tyranny of the majority? Isn't that what a democracy is supposed to be? (only it doesn't like the word tyranny) The Tyranny of the minority? Isn't that what most countries usually get?

The US Constitution does not call for separation of church and state. The US Constitution says this in the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The concept of separation came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Jefferson's letter can be read here:

http://www.usconstit...t/jeffwall.html

Separation was upheld in a writing by Justice Hugo Black in "Everson v. Board of Education" in 1947 when Justice Black wrote:

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

Separation of church and state is not in the US Constitution.

Nonsense. Why can't government simply reduce some of their program costs?

Please tell me where it is written that governments can and should run based on deficit spending.

What has the cost of government got to do with the fact that they use tax money to subsidise religions? Even if they reduced their spending they'd still be using taxpayer's money to subsidise religions that many of them don't believe in.

I hardly knew which of your posts to respond to so I chose this one.

My point is the government could cut off some of these non-vital programs and would need comsiderably less of our cash to operate. I will ask you the same question that our new found member sirineou attempted to answer.

Please provide some instances where taxpayer money is be used to "subsidize religions that many of them don't believe in."

You may refer to my post immediately before this one as it covers social services and the secular nature of government aid.

I'm sorry buy I don't understand your remarks about 'non-vital' programmes having anything to do with my post.

Let's assume that we're talking about a goverment all of whose programmes you approve of. That government has to raise a specific amount of money to fund those programmes and does so by taxing its constituents. If it allows some people/organisations not to pay tax then the tax that they don't pay has to be paid by the rest of the constituency. Thus the constituents who do pay tax are subsidising those who don't. I can't make it any clearer than that.

Let me give this another shot.

Taxes not even due cannot be considered as lost government revenue.

You and I live with a budget which is primarily set by the amount of money we receive on a monthly or annual basis. We must therefore set our expenditures at a low enough level that does not exceed our income. If our expenditures exceed our monthly income, what are we supposed to do?

We could always go back to our source of revenue and tell them...Hey, I just spent more than I earned so give me more money. This is what the federal government does.

Our other option is to cut back current month expenditures to help recover the loss from the previous month and get even. This is what you and I do.

The federal government should have a pretty good handle on what sort of revenues they can expect from one year to the next. After all, they have been doing it for over 200 years.

If, for instance, their estimated income is only $2 Trillion this year, why do they plan to spend $3.6 Trillion? Not very fiscally responsible if you ask me.

I do believe you are putting the cart before the horse. Government programs should not drive how much revenue has to be raised...government revenue should dictate what programs are possible, just like your budget and mine.

You might find this link entertaining:

http://www.cagw.org/.../pig-book/2012/

This thread seems to have got to the stage where some are talking American, based on the constitution of the US, and others are talking in general terms. They won't match. Remember that the US constitution (a great document; I'm not denigrating it) was written over 200 years ago, against a background of some of the most horrible Calvinism which has ever developed on this planet. It is NOT set in stone.

Those of us who come from countries whose constitutions are possibly a little more relaxed will feel differently. My country, Great Britain, still has a state church. Hardly anybody goes to it, but that's hardly the point. The point is that there is no constitutional objection to the state subsidising religious schools or hospitals. I still stand by the definition I made a number of posts back... the one which Sirineou regarded as "a jock".... well, that's what he said.

Ok one last attempt to inject sanity in to this rapidly deteriorating conversation

after that you are on your own,

I'm having difficulty following your arguments, ."

I am not surprised

If a nun wears a crucifix, is she using Government money to do so?

No,,, only if she does in a government subsidized institution.

"This forum is not restricted to the USA, and references to 'the constitution' are meaningless unless put into the right national context."

No,, but when I talk of the constitution, The separation of church and state, the founding fathers, and the new World. I hope you don't think I was referring to Uzbekistan

"To suggest that the individual taxpayer has any real option to exercise his rights is living in a dream world. Yes, there are such things as ombudsmen, I know, but they have relatively little impact."

Say what?

'The Tyranny of the majority? Isn't that what a democracy is supposed to be? (only it doesn't like the word tyranny) The Tyranny of the minority? Isn't that what most countries usually get"

If The tyranny of the majority is what democracy is supposed to be , then we will still have segregation in the USA, If the tyranny of the minority is what most get, the we would have oligarchical rule in most countries. which is what we might have but not what is desirable

.

'The US Constitution does not call for separation of church and state. The US Constitution says this in the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Isn't that what separation of church and state is?

'Separation was upheld in a writing by Justice Hugo Black in "Everson v. Board of Education" in 1947 when Justice Black wrote:

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

I don't know why you would put that in your statement to support your position that there is no separation of Church and state,

But yes I would agree with you that the supreme court is the final authority in constitutional matters. and Justice's Hugo Blacks opinion supports my position.

'Taxes not even due cannot be considered as lost government revenue'

not a coherent statement

'You and I live with a budget which is primarily set by the amount of money we receive on a monthly or annual basis"

Yes , also hourly, daily,weekly and quarterly

"We must therefore set our expenditures at a low enough level that does not exceed our income. If our expenditures exceed our monthly income, what are we supposed to do?"

It is called defecate spending

"We could always go back to our source of revenue and tell them...Hey, I just spent more than I earned so give me more money. This is what the federal government does."

Sure, both local, state and federal

"Our other option is to cut back current month expenditures to help recover the loss from the previous month and get even. This is what you and I do."

some of as do, but Yes it is called a balanced budget

"The federal government should have a pretty good handle on what sort of revenues they can expect from one year to the next. After all, they have been doing it for over 200 years."

Yes it is called the CBO, often those projections are not realistic, and or don't pan out.

" If, for instance, their estimated income is only $2 Trillion this year, why do they plan to spend $3.6 Trillion? Not very fiscally responsible if you ask me"

because in their opinion the need $3,6 Trillion, and like you said they only have $2 trillion. as i said before it is called deficit spending and some will argue that it is not fiscally responsible

".I do believe you are putting the cart before the horse. Government programs should not drive how much revenue has to be raised...government revenue should dictate what programs are possible, just like your budget and mine"

they are not mutually exclusive, Government programs determine what revenue is needed to sustain such programs and government adjusts it's revenue options accordingly, if such revenue options can not be adjusted to sustain such programs the government needs to cut some of these programs or resort to deficit spending.

.

.

Ok one last attempt to inject sanity in to this rapidly deteriorating conversation

after that you are on your own,

I'm having difficulty following your arguments, ."

I am not surprised

If a nun wears a crucifix, is she using Government money to do so?

No,,, only if she does in a government subsidized institution.

"This forum is not restricted to the USA, and references to 'the constitution' are meaningless unless put into the right national context."

No,, but when I talk of the constitution, The separation of church and state, the founding fathers, and the new World. I hope you don't think I was referring to Uzbekistan

"To suggest that the individual taxpayer has any real option to exercise his rights is living in a dream world. Yes, there are such things as ombudsmen, I know, but they have relatively little impact."

Say what?

'The Tyranny of the majority? Isn't that what a democracy is supposed to be? (only it doesn't like the word tyranny) The Tyranny of the minority? Isn't that what most countries usually get"

If The tyranny of the majority is what democracy is supposed to be , then we will still have segregation in the USA, If the tyranny of the minority is what most get, the we would have oligarchical rule in most countries. which is what we might have but not what is desirable

.

'The US Constitution does not call for separation of church and state. The US Constitution says this in the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Isn't that what separation of church and state is?

'Separation was upheld in a writing by Justice Hugo Black in "Everson v. Board of Education" in 1947 when Justice Black wrote:

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

I don't know why you would put that in your statement to support your position that there is no separation of Church and state,

But yes I would agree with you that the supreme court is the final authority in constitutional matters. and Justice's Hugo Blacks opinion supports my position.

'Taxes not even due cannot be considered as lost government revenue'

not a coherent statement

'You and I live with a budget which is primarily set by the amount of money we receive on a monthly or annual basis"

Yes , also hourly, daily,weekly and quarterly

"We must therefore set our expenditures at a low enough level that does not exceed our income. If our expenditures exceed our monthly income, what are we supposed to do?"

It is called defecate spending

"We could always go back to our source of revenue and tell them...Hey, I just spent more than I earned so give me more money. This is what the federal government does."

Sure, both local, state and federal

"Our other option is to cut back current month expenditures to help recover the loss from the previous month and get even. This is what you and I do."

some of as do, but Yes it is called a balanced budget

"The federal government should have a pretty good handle on what sort of revenues they can expect from one year to the next. After all, they have been doing it for over 200 years."

Yes it is called the CBO, often those projections are not realistic, and or don't pan out.

" If, for instance, their estimated income is only $2 Trillion this year, why do they plan to spend $3.6 Trillion? Not very fiscally responsible if you ask me"

because in their opinion the need $3,6 Trillion, and like you said they only have $2 trillion. as i said before it is called deficit spending and some will argue that it is not fiscally responsible

".I do believe you are putting the cart before the horse. Government programs should not drive how much revenue has to be raised...government revenue should dictate what programs are possible, just like your budget and mine"

they are not mutually exclusive, Government programs determine what revenue is needed to sustain such programs and government adjusts it's revenue options accordingly, if such revenue options can not be adjusted to sustain such programs the government needs to cut some of these programs or resort to deficit spending.

.

OK, guys. I think I have part of this mess figured out. Our newest friend has quoted parts of a post by IB and parts of one of mine.

IsanBirder, you get the first five answers and I will try and clean up the rest of it, unless I find somebody else quoted later on.

I will start the number system at 6) which details the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Here goes nothing...

6) The First Amendment clearly states the government will not establish a national religion nor will they interfere with free worship of any and all religions. It has NOTHING to do with the powers of separation. Read it again and go slower this time.

7) No, the Justice Black opinion does not support your position. You clearly said the separation of church and state is IN the Constitution. It is NOT. Period. End of story. It is an opinion handed down in a Supreme Court decision based primarily on a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in the year of our Lord 1802.

8) If I owe no taxes, how can the government say I should pay them anyway, thus causing the non-payment of taxes-not-due to become a loss of government revenue?

9) I never RECEIVED money on an hourly or daily basis. But then I have never been a common day laborer either. I have EARNED it on an hourly basis but never RECEIVED it that way. Did you catch the difference there?

10) What is defecate (sic) spending? Is it when the government shits out more money that it receives? This can also be called deficit spending. This system doesn't really work for governments either since we now have a national debt over $16 Trillion.

11. I was referring to an individual who has overspent their budget. We know what the government does but I asked should I, as an over spender, go to my employer and tell them I want more money because I spent all they gave me last month? Your answer of..."sure", would indicate that is what you think I should do. I disagree as it would be met with laughter by the HR people.

12) At last. You may know what a personal balanced budget means.

13) The Congressional Budget Office only works with information provided them by Congress on a best case scenario. The information provided by Congress is traditionally inflated to make a disastrous bill look less disastrous than it will actually be. I do believe the Treasury Department has a pretty good handle on how much revenue the Federal Government has taken in year by year. Perhaps some information could be obtained from them by our Congressional staff.

14) "Some" will argue that deficit spending is NOT fiscally responsible??? Those persons would be correct.

Lastly

15) And therein lies the correct answer. You said, " if such revenue options can not be adjusted to sustain such programs the government needs to cut some of these programs..." I omitted the deficit spending thingy.

May we consider that we are on our own now?

^^^^ sure you are right I don't know why I did not see that from the begging.

sure you are right

chuckd usually is.

Yes, Chuck, I am sure you were right... about the US. Since I have no great interest in what the US does, most of it passes on the wind (or maybe goes begging?). I have, frankly, lost interest in the direction this thread has gone in, so I won't extend it any further. That, of course, is a jock.

The First Amendment clearly states the government will not establish a national religion nor will they interfere with free worship of any and all religions. It has NOTHING to do with the powers of separation. Read it again and go slower this time.

7) No, the Justice Black opinion does not support your position. You clearly said the separation of church and state is IN the Constitution. It is NOT. Period. End of story. It is an opinion handed down in a Supreme Court decision based primarily on a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in the year of our Lord 1802.

I am sorry I find my self proven wrong again, I was under the mistaken assumption that the amendments were part of the US constitution.

I guess now one of us need to tell the US Supreme court they have being wasting a lot of time and taxpayer money , deciding the constitutionality of the separation of Church ans state issues for years.

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

(arranged by date)

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)

Court finds that the federal antibigamy statute does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;

2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;

3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)

City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.

The First Amendment clearly states the government will not establish a national religion nor will they interfere with free worship of any and all religions. It has NOTHING to do with the powers of separation. Read it again and go slower this time.

7) No, the Justice Black opinion does not support your position. You clearly said the separation of church and state is IN the Constitution. It is NOT. Period. End of story. It is an opinion handed down in a Supreme Court decision based primarily on a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in the year of our Lord 1802.

I am sorry I find my self proven wrong again, I was under the mistaken assumption that the amendments were part of the US constitution.

I guess now one of us need to tell the US Supreme court they have being wasting a lot of time and taxpayer money , deciding the constitutionality of the separation of Church ans state issues for years.

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

(arranged by date)

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)

Court finds that the federal antibigamy statute does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;

2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;

3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)

City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.

Thank you for acknowledging your error.