VOX readers ask: If we have a “separation of the church and the country”, why should we avoid tax exemptions for religious schools? How do religious schools get government funding? Why is Trump allowed to run for religion and sell the Bible publicly? Why do we say “we trust God” on our money? Why “under God” in the oath of allegiance?
The concept of “the separation of the church from the state” is not as you think.
The First Amendment prohibits the lawRespect for the establishment of religion,” said many Americans believe that a strong wall of separation should be established between the church and the state. But the Constitution does not enforce itself. In the United States, we rely on judges and Supreme Court judges to determine the meaning of the Constitution and apply it to individual cases.
This means that the number of churches and state separations in the United States tends to float and flow according to who is sitting in the Supreme Court.
The idea that the government does not play a role in funding or encouraging religion may have reached its high level in the mid-20th century. Just as the Supreme Court Everson v. Education Commission (1947), “No amount or size is taxable and can be imposed to support any religious activity or institution, regardless of what they are called, or any form they may take to teach or practice religion.” This shows that it is unconstitutional to fund any religious activity with the money collected from taxes.
However, starting with the Nixon administration, the court began to move steadily to the right. Nixon holds four of nine seats in the Supreme Court, although most of his nominees are relatively moderate compared to the growing number of ideological judges Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Donald Trump.
today, Republicans make 6-3 super contributions to the Supreme CourtWhen church and state cases came before them, all six Republicans were acting accurately Political movements are closely integrated with conservative Christianity Performance. This means that the court is now actively dismantling any obstacles that have existed in the past between the church and the state.
Why is religion in public schools and American money?
Let’s get started Carson v. Makin (2022), a Republican judge concluded that if a state provides vouchers to help certain students pay for private education, those vouchers must be allowed to be used in religious schools. The court also recently announced that it will hear two more cases, Oklahoma May require states to provide funding for religious charter schools.
If you are looking for an explanation for this shift, you won’t find it in the Constitution because the text of the First Amendment has not changed. You will find it among temporary staff in the Supreme Court.
The question of whether taxpayers must fund religious schools is a fierce controversy and is likely to depend on the issue of political parties controlling the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. But it is worth admitting that both parties have faith. All politically persuasive Americans care very much about their churches, mosques, temples and synagogues.
Indeed, this could explain why Trump (who runs as a private citizen in public office) has the right to say anything he wants to say about religion – choose to center religion or even Bible for sale. The Bible is Literally, the most popular book in the worldthousands of American voters looked affectionately at the politicians who were aligned with it.
This reality also shapes the function of US tax policy.
Never put in serious effort to deprive religious charities including tax-exempt status. And it may never be, because the people attending these chapels are voters, and if they try something like this they may be irritated.
In other words, the Constitution has long been understood as Prohibit religious discrimination. Therefore, these tax exemptions must be provided equally to those of all faiths. If the church can claim tax exemption, the mosque must also be able to claim the same exemption under the same terms.
Again, there are largely some liturgical or symbolic nods to religion, such as using “the God we trust in is in the God we trust” on our coins, or opening up many legislative sessions in a prayer way – as the Supreme Court said, this is Marsh v Chambers (1983), “deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country”, a history and tradition, especially early days – intertwined with Christianity. The courts have placed many symbolic religious acknowledgements in place, in part because attempts to expel them are impossible to succeed.
To understand why, consider the controversy that broke out briefly in the second Bush administration. In 2002, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the term “under God” was included in the public schools’ daily recitation of allegiance oaths. Violate the Constitution. The decision sparked strong opposition among members of Congress, including a bipartisan proposal to amend the constitution to allowRemarks to God in the promise of allegiance or American currency. ”
The Supreme Court ruled that the dispute was Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004), the Court of Appeals has never had jurisdiction in the first place. But the whole incident warns Americans who hope to mention the symbolic mention of religion completely detached from government. Although there may be reasonable legal arguments about this position, the law ultimately belongs to politics, which favor religion, especially Christianity.
