What is the difference between establishment clause and free exercise

Religious beliefs are protected even when they do not conform to the dogma of any particular religion. In fact, a person does not have to belong to an organized group to receive protection for religious beliefs. The courts may not declare any religion false even if the overwhelming majority of people do not believe in its precepts or claims.

The Establishment Clause. The establishment clause has generated a good deal of controversy in the last fifty years, especially in the area of school prayer and government funding of parochial religious schools. There has not been general agreement on the Supreme Court as to the meaning of this clause, and this has led to seemingly inconsistent decisions. Some justices take a very narrow view of the clause, arguing that the government violates it only if it actually establishes a state religion or coerces individuals to participate in religion or religious activities.

On the other side, some justices have argued for a strict wall of separation between church and state, not allowing any government aid or support for religion. Neither of these positions, however, has usually commanded a majority of the Court.

The approach taken most often by the Court is one of neutrality. That is, the government may not favor one religion over another, or religion over secularism non-religion.

Under this approach the government may not endorse actually or symbolically religion. The differences between these approaches can be seen in a case involving religious displays on public property. In Allegheny County v. Several justices did not see either as a violation of the establishment clause, and several took the approach that any religious displays by the county constituted a violation. The case was decided by the judges in the middle. The other display, containing symbols of two religions and an acknowledgement of freedom, was considered a reasonable approach to acknowledging a holiday with both religious and cultural aspects and not an endorsement of religion.

In many, but not all establishment clause cases, the Supreme Court has applied a test derived from the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman Lemon test. Under this test, there are three requirements that a state law must meet in order to be constitutional.

First, the law must have a secular non-religious purpose. Laws providing for the posting of the ten commandments or for silent meditation in schools have been held unconstitutional under this test since they were clearly passed for religious reasons. On the other hand, states have been allowed to pay for textbooks for non-religious subjects taught in parochial schools, since this had the secular purpose of helping the students learn. Second, the law must not have the primary effect of advancing religion.

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and therefore may be restricted include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial ….

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel. Social studies. Ben Davis October 20, What is the major difference between the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause What are the tests for each clause?

What is an example of the free exercise clause? Who does the Establishment Clause protect? Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world.

The free exercise clause protects the religious beliefs, and to a certain extent, the religious practices of all citizens. The more controversial establishment clause prohibits the government from endorsing, supporting, or becoming too involved in religion and religious activities.

The Supreme Court has upheld some limits to free exercise, however; although individuals may believe whatever they want, the government may limit actions that break secular laws if there is a compelling government interest at stake. The idea of an inalienable right is at the heart of U.