Talk:Establishment Clause

message: Can anyone explain the justification for religious buildings to be exempt from property tax?  Does anyone know more about this?
The clause says that they wont "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".  Allowing them to be exempt from taxes seems to be respecing an establishment of religion.  They are respecting that a church is exempt, while I am not, because I am not a church.  This seems to be respecting religion.  They give preferential treatment to a church, simply because it is an establishment of religion.  A business owner has to pay the taxes, because they are not an establishment of religion.  Doesnt seem to fit with the clause. Anybody know more about it?  how does this work?  how are churches tax-exempt?72.174.2.252 10:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might be because churches are nonprofit organazitions, and give money back to the community.
I really don't know. I could be they just get tax-deductions from that money.
RJRocket53 02:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: More precisely, the 14th amendment provided for a doctrine of incorporation that allows SCOTUS to apply the protections of the Bill of Rights to individuals against the states, and the establishment clause wasn't incorporated until later (1925 if I'm not mistaken).Skberry889 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Property Tax

message: The requirement that religion not be a requirement for public office and that oaths for public office include a religious oath are important to understanding the Establishment Clause.  The records of the state ratification conventions concerning these clauses are illuminating.  They shed light on the original intent of the Establishment Clause75Janice 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources?  I'm not doubting you, but I would certainly like to see the minutes taken from the ratifying conventions.  They probably merit inclusion, but this can't be determined without having read them.Skberry889 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: other

message: Locke vs. Davey 540 U.S. 712 (2004) held that it is permissible under the U.S. Constitution to exclude religious programs of study from government funding programs - if state law requires such an exclusions (thus upholding various Blaine Amendments). This is an important case that deserves a section as it undermines many previous arguements against Blaine Amendments (the arguements were based on the establishment clause) Stealthymatt 01:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Locke vs. Davey

message: This page needs a major overhaul.  This is a pretty shoddy article, given the rather important subject matter.  I think that a quality article on the Establishment Clause should include at least an analysis of the 18th century understanding of the clause, a history of the clause up though Hugo Black and the incorporation doctrine, a section on the "taxpayer standing" exception given to Establishment Clause lawsuits under Flast v. Cohen, and the modern critique of Establishment Clause jurisprudence as best articulated by Justice Clarence Thomas in his Newdow dissent.
:I agree re historical context. Broke that issue out into its own section on this discussion page. Jordan 22:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this topic, more consistency is needed as well. The article flip-flops between three different versions of initial-capping the phrase: Establishment Clause, establishment clause, and Establishment clause. Which is correct? This is an encyclopedia and should therefore be a go-to guide for stuff like this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.0.18 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I have made the capitalization consistent.  I did not see anything in the Wikipedia Manual of Style to give me guidance.  The article in Wikipedia on the Free Exercise Clause consistently capitalizes all three words.  On that basis, I have capitalized both words in "Establishment Clause" in this article.Dulcimermusic 03:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Overhaul Needed

message: ...but, I think the final paragraph, mentioning the depictions of Moses with the Ten Commandments, and Mohammed, on the actual US Supreme Court building is very good. For those who feel seperation of church and state has gone beyond what the Framers had in mind, it is a good piece of evidence. For those, like me, who just love a good irony, it is hilarious. Just imagine, a Supreme Court justice saying, "Religious figures on government buildings, like the ones we have outside, are unconstitutional, so you must get rid of yours, defendant from some state. We'll keep ours, though."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.111.205 (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not that it matters

message: I think it'd be worthwhile to add some historical context to the Clause, including prior versions of it. Jordan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanotto (talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical context?

message: If there has been some arguments over the Constitutionality of chaplains in Congress, I think it should be added. Masternachos (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chaplains

message: Recently, while editing the Separation of church and state in the United States article, I came across , which characterizes the Establishment Clause as having been meant to prevent the church from exercising undue influence over the state, ... preventing the church from attaining sovereign power. I haven't incorperated this characterization into either article, but thought I would mention it here. Also see here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Protecting the State from the Church

message: "The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another."
There's nothing preventing it from doing both.  I can't be the first person to have noticed this.  This article seems extremely thin on substantiation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MlleMFT (talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't stop people from expressing their religion on public grounds (you can still pray in a court house), it stops the government from expressing any one religion on public ground (as this would be favoring this religion over others). In theory the government could, under this clause, put up religious monuments celebrating all religions and non-religious belief systems equally; however this would be quite an undertaking (it would have to be one big monument to display all religious iconography from all over the world). 107.10.53.28 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: False dichotomy

message: This marks the incorporation of Jefferson's "separation of church and state" into Establishment Clause jurisprudence.  The section noting the 1940's ruling is misleading. Phyesalis (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reynolds v United States 

message: Some people seem to think that this has already been decided and set in stone. If it were, we wouldn't have ongoing discussion at the Supreme Court level. According to this source  historians and scholars do not agree on what was intended in the original language. I propose to include the explanation in the lede. From the Constitutional Law: Principles and Practice. USchick (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you propose to include. I suggest that you propose specific language here for discussion and comment. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At the end of the introduction I propose to add – "Scholars and historians do not agree on what the language originally intended, leaving it up to the interpretation of future legislation." Or something like that. USchick (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing debate, not yet decided

message: This edit caught my eye. It changed the word illegal in "the Court ruled 5-4 that displays of the Ten Commandments in several Kentucky county courthouses were illegal because they were not clearly integrated with a secular display" to read unconstitutional instead, saying "Religious displays: Illegal is not a proper term for this, it was unconstitutional".
I'm not a lawyer, but an observations and some questions come to mind
*It looks to me as if what SCOTUS did in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky was to affirm a 6th Circuit appeals court ruling which had affirmed a district court ruling granting a permanent injunction prohibiting display of three particular Ten Commandments displays.
*Is the detailed explanation in the SCOTUS opinion written by Justice Souter precedential or is it obiter dictum?
*Does the SCOTUS ruling rise to the level of a ruling that these displays were either illegal or unconstutional (and, if so, which one: illegal, or unconstitutional)?
*Does the SCOTUS ruling apply only to these three displays, or also to other displays which have some degree of similarity to these three displays?
Does the article need further update regarding this? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotus ruling in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky 

message: This edit caught my eye. Asserting without support that the Establishment Clause "...  tends to allow for a greater harmony amongst all of the many denominations in the United States" seems to me to cross the line as far as unsupported editorial interpretation goes. Perhaps this would be better placed in a body section on Interpretation with source supported content. Googling around, I see Major Theories on Establishment Clause Interpretation at   There are probably more sources out there. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR in the lead? 

message: This edit caught ny eye. The edit changed an article assertion which credited Fisher Ames with authorship to credit James Madison instead. No source is cited to support either credit. Googling around, I find that  seemingly contradicts both. That source says, in part:
Footnotes 1 and 2 read:
WP:DUE suggests to me that some of this ought to be mentioned in this article. I'm neither a topical expert nor much of a wordsmith, so I will suggest that other editors make that addition. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Establishment Clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614000457/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org:80/faclibrary/libraryreligion.aspx?topic=establishment_clause_supreme_court_cases_topic to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/libraryreligion.aspx?topic=establishment_clause_supreme_court_cases_topic
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Without discussion, certainly without any consensus, this page was moved to "Anti-establishment Clause." The section of the constitution has been known as the "Establishment Clause" for decades, if not centuries in US constitutional law. I tried doing a search for "anti-establishment clause" and I found no reliable sources that suggested that usage. I think we should be very careful in moving important, well-written articles like this without an important discussion between experienced editors. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Rowan County, North Carolina, July 2017,  ruling http://www.wral.com/appeals-court-board-s-prayer-practice-is-unconstitutional/16819526/
states, ""The principle at stake here may be a profound one, but it is also simple. The Establishment Clause does not permit a seat of government to wrap itself in a single faith," Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in the majority opinion that was joined by nine other judges."--Wikipietime (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rowan County, North Carolina]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Establishment Clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516032845/http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf to http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)