nc33/MultiSpan_SQUAD huggingface dataset:
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

The centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

Question: When was the centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution made explicit?
Answer: 1947

Question: What was the topic of the Everson v. Board of Education?
Answer: government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools

Question: What case was the concept relevant?
Answer: Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1

Question: What was the case of Everson v. Board of Education the first instance of?
Answer: court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state

Question: How must the wall separating church and state be kept?
Answer: high and impregnable
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

While the decision (with four dissents) ultimately upheld the state law allowing the funding of transportation of students to religious schools, the majority opinion (by Justice Hugo Black) and the dissenting opinions (by Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge and Justice Robert H. Jackson) each explicitly stated that the Constitution has erected a "wall between church and state" or a "separation of Church from State": their disagreement was limited to whether this case of state funding of transportation to religious schools breached that wall. Rutledge, on behalf of the four dissenting justices, took the position that the majority had indeed permitted a violation of the wall of separation in this case: "Neither so high nor so impregnable today as yesterday is the wall raised between church and state by Virginia's great statute of religious freedom and the First Amendment, now made applicable to all the states by the Fourteenth." Writing separately, Justice Jackson argued that "[T]here are no good grounds upon which to support the present legislation. In fact, the undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of Church from State, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion yielding support to their commingling in educational matters."

Question: What did the decision ultimately uphold?
Answer: state law

Question: What was the state allowed to continue to fund?
Answer: transportation of students to religious schools

Question: What did both the majority and dissenting opinions reiterate?
Answer: that the Constitution has erected a "wall between church and state"

Question: What was the disagreement between the Justices over whether funding breached what?
Answer: that wall

Question: What did Justice Jackson argue there were no grounds upon which to support what?
Answer: the present legislation
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

In 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially-sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. (The prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision consisted of: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.") As the Court stated:

Question: When did the Supreme Court address the issue of officially sponsored prayer in public schools?
Answer: 1962

Question: What was the case in 1962 where the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially sponsored school prayer?
Answer: Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421

Question: By what vote did the Supreme Court determine it unconstitutional for state official to compose an official school prayer?
Answer: 6-1

Question: Even if a prayer is non-denominational it's still considered what?
Answer: unconstitutional
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court considered an Arkansas law that made it a crime "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" this theory in any school or university that received public funds. The court's opinion, written by Justice Abe Fortas, ruled that the Arkansas law violated "the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group." The court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and that "[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them."

Question: When did the case of Epperson v. Arkansas take place?
Answer: 1968

Question: What did the Arkansas law violate the constitutional prohibition of state laws in respect to?
Answer: an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Question: Who wrote the court's opinion in Epperson v. Arkansas?
Answer: Justice Abe Fortas

Question: What does the State have no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from?
Answer: views distasteful to them

Question: What did an Arkansas law make it a crime to teach the theory of?
Answer: that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the court determined that a Pennsylvania state policy of reimbursing the salaries and related costs of teachers of secular subjects in private religious schools violated the Establishment Clause. The court's decision argued that the separation of church and state could never be absolute: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable," the court wrote. "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."

Question: When was the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman?
Answer: 1971

Question: What state's policy was in question in Lemon v. Kurtzman?
Answer: Pennsylvania

Question: Whose salaries were being reimbursed in private religious schools?
Answer: teachers of secular subjects

Question: What did the state's policy violate?
Answer: the Establishment Clause

Question: What did the court's decision argue that the separation of church and state could never be?
Answer: absolute
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion. (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.

Question: How many prongs is the Supreme COurt's test to determine if a government action comports with the Establishment Clause?
Answer: three

Question: What is the three-pronged test regarding the Establishment Clause know as?
Answer: "Lemon Test"

Question: To not violate the Establishment Clause, a law must be adopted with neutral or what purpose?
Answer: non-religious

Question: What much the primary effect of a law neither advance or inhibit?
Answer: religion

Question: Excessive entanglement occurs when a state policy results in a close relationship of what?
Answer: government with religion
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display on American legal traditions in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed, because the purpose of the display (educating the public on American legal traditions) was secular in nature. In ruling on the Mount Soledad cross controversy on May 3, 2006, however, a federal judge ruled that the cross on public property on Mount Soledad must be removed.

Question: When did the US Court of Appeals rule in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County?
Answer: December 20, 2005

Question: What was displayed in Kentucky courthouses?
Answer: the Ten Commandments

Question: What did a federal judge rule must be removed from public property?
Answer: the cross

Question: When was a ruling handed down on the Mount Soledad cross controversy?
Answer: May 3, 2006

Question: Why were the displays of the ten Commandments allowed?
Answer: secular in nature
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

In what will be the case is Town of Greece v. Galloway, 12-696, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding whether prayers at town meetings, which are allowed, must allow various faiths to lead prayer, or whether the prayers can be predominately Christian. On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Town of Greece by holding that the U.S. Constitution not only allows for prayer at government meetings, but also for sectarian prayers like predominately Christian prayers.

Question: What case is in regards to whether prayers at town meetings must allow various faiths?
Answer: Town of Greece v. Galloway

Question: When did the Supreme Court rule on Town of Greece v. Galloway?
Answer: May 5, 2014

Question: What was the Supreme Court's final vote in Town of Greece v. Galloway?
Answer: 5-4

Question: Who did the Supreme Court rule in favor of?
Answer: Town of Greece

Question: What did the Supreme Court rule the Constitution allowed for?
Answer: sectarian prayers
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Some scholars and organizations disagree with the notion of "separation of church and state", or the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitutional limitation on religious establishment. Such critics generally argue that the phrase misrepresents the textual requirements of the Constitution, while noting that many aspects of church and state were intermingled at the time the Constitution was ratified. These critics argue that the prevalent degree of separation of church and state could not have been intended by the constitutional framers. Some of the intermingling between church and state include religious references in official contexts, and such other founding documents as the United States Declaration of Independence, which references the idea of a "Creator" and "Nature's God", though these references did not ultimately appear in the Constitution nor do they mention any particular religious view of a "Creator" or "Nature's God."

Question: What do some organizations disagree with the notion of?
Answer: separation of church and state

Question: What do the critics argue the phrase misrepresents?
Answer: the textual requirements of the Constitution

Question: What do scholars also disagree with about the way the Supreme Court has interpreted what?
Answer: constitutional limitation on religious establishment

Question: What do critics note were intermingled at the time the Constitution was ratified?
Answer: many aspects of church and state

Question: What do these critics argue couldn't have been intended by the framers of the constitution?
Answer: prevalent degree of separation of church and state
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

These critics of the modern separation of church and state also note the official establishment of religion in several of the states at the time of ratification, to suggest that the modern incorporation of the Establishment Clause as to state governments goes against the original constitutional intent.[citation needed] The issue is complex, however, as the incorporation ultimately bases on the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, at which point the first amendment's application to the state government was recognized. Many of these constitutional debates relate to the competing interpretive theories of originalism versus modern, progressivist theories such as the doctrine of the Living Constitution. Other debates center on the principle of the law of the land in America being defined not just by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, but also by legal precedence, making an accurate reading of the Constitution subject to the mores and values of a given era, and rendering the concept of historical revisionism irrelevant when discussing the Constitution.

Question: Critics of modern separation of church and state note there was official establishment of what in several states at the time of ratification?
Answer: religion

Question: When was the passage of the 14th Amendment?
Answer: 1868

Question: What was recognized by the time the 14th Amendment passed?
Answer: first amendment's application to the state government

Question: What kind of theory is the doctrine of the Living Constitution?
Answer: progressivist

Question: What do some debates center on the law of the land not being just defined by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause but also by what?
Answer: legal precedence
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

The "religious test" clause has been interpreted to cover both elected officials and appointed ones, career civil servants as well as political appointees. Religious beliefs or the lack of them have therefore not been permissible tests or qualifications with regard to federal employees since the ratification of the Constitution. Seven states, however, have language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions that require state office-holders to have particular religious beliefs, though some of these have been successfully challenged in court. These states are Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

Question: What clause are both elected officials and appointed ones covered by?
Answer: religious test

Question: What type of beliefs are not an allowed job qualification test for federal employees?
Answer: Religious

Question: How many states violate the religious test clause with language somewhere in their official policies?
Answer: Seven

Question: What do states violate the clause require state office-holders to possess?
Answer: particular religious beliefs
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

The required beliefs of these clauses include belief in a Supreme Being and belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. (Tennessee Constitution Article IX, Section 2 is one such example.) Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God." In some cases these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required of jurors and witnesses in court. At one time, such restrictions were allowed under the doctrine of states' rights; today they are deemed to be in violation of the federal First Amendment, as applied to the states via the 14th amendment, and hence unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Question: What do the non-permissible clauses require a belief in?
Answer: a Supreme Being

Question: What's one example in Tennessee's constitution?
Answer: Article IX, Section 2

Question: What language do some of the same states specify the oath of office include?
Answer: so help me God

Question: Requiring oaths invoking God are today deemed to be in violation of what?
Answer: federal First Amendment

Question: Because such oaths are in violation of the First Amendment, they're what?
Answer: unconstitutional and unenforceable
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Relaxed zoning rules and special parking privileges for churches, the tax-free status of church property, the fact that Christmas is a federal holiday, etc., have also been questioned, but have been considered examples of the governmental prerogative in deciding practical and beneficial arrangements for the society. The national motto "In God We Trust" has been challenged as a violation, but the Supreme Court has ruled that ceremonial deism is not religious in nature. A circuit court ruling affirmed Ohio's right to use as its motto a passage from the Bible, "With God, all things are possible", because it displayed no preference for a particular religion.

Question: Why have perks like relaxed zoning rules and special parking privileges been allowed for churches?
Answer: beneficial arrangements for the society

Question: What is the national motto "In God We Trust" officially known as?
Answer: ceremonial deism

Question: What has the Supreme Court ruled about ceremonial deism?
Answer: not religious in nature

Question: What state uses as a motto a passage from the Bible?
Answer: Ohio

Question: Why was Ohio allowed to use a biblical passage as its motto?
Answer: because it displayed no preference for a particular religion
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Jeffries and Ryan (2001) argue that the modern concept of separation of church and state dates from the mid-twentieth century rulings of the Supreme Court. The central point, they argue, was a constitutional ban against aid to religious schools, followed by a later ban on religious observance in public education. Jeffries and Ryan argue that these two propositions—that public aid should not go to religious schools and that public schools should not be religious—make up the separationist position of the modern Establishment Clause.

Question: When do Jeffries and Ryan that the modern concept of separation of church and state dates from?
Answer: mid-twentieth century

Question: What was the central point of the rulings of the Supreme Court's rulings?
Answer: constitutional ban against aid to religious schools

Question: What was later banned in public education?
Answer: religious observance

Question: How many propositions make up the separationist position on the Establishment Clause?
Answer: two
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Jeffries and Ryan argue that no-aid position drew support from a coalition of separationist opinion. Most important was "the pervasive secularism that came to dominate American public life," which sought to confine religion to a private sphere. Further, the ban against government aid to religious schools was supported before 1970 by most Protestants (and most Jews), who opposed aid to religious schools, which were mostly Catholic at the time. After 1980, however, anti-Catholic sentiment has diminished among mainline Protestants, and the crucial coalition of public secularists and Protestant churches has collapsed. While mainline Protestant denominations are more inclined towards strict separation of church and state, much evangelical opinion has now largely deserted that position. As a consequence, strict separationism is opposed today by members of many Protestant faiths, even perhaps eclipsing the opposition of Roman Catholics.[citation needed]

Question: What position do Jeffries and Ryan argue was the reason for support from a coalition of separationists?
Answer: no-aid

Question: What type of secularism came to dominate American public life?
Answer: pervasive

Question: Who supported the ban against government aid to religious schools before 1970?
Answer: most Protestants (and most Jews)

Question: What diminished after 1980?
Answer: anti-Catholic sentiment

Question: What is opposed today by members of many Protestant faiths?
Answer: strict separationism
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Critics of the modern concept of the "separation of church and state" argue that it is untethered to anything in the text of the constitution and is contrary to the conception of the phrase as the Founding Fathers understood it. Philip Hamburger, Columbia Law school professor and prominent critic of the modern understanding of the concept, maintains that the modern concept, which deviates from the constitutional establishment clause jurisprudence, is rooted in American anti-Catholicism and Nativism.[citation needed] Briefs before the Supreme Court, including by the U.S. government, have argued that some state constitutional amendments relating to the modern conception of separation of church and state (Blaine Amendments) were motivated by and intended to enact anti-Catholicism.

Question: What do critics of the concept of separation of church and state argue it's untethered to?
Answer: anything in the text of the constitution

Question: What is the profession of Philip Hamburger?
Answer: professor

Question: What school is Philip Hamburger associated with?
Answer: Columbia Law school

Question: What does Hamburger feel the modern concept of separation of church and state is rooted in?
Answer: American anti-Catholicism

Question: What are state constitutional amendments relating to separation of church and state known as?
Answer: Blaine Amendments
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

J. Brent Walker, Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee, responded to Hamburger's claims noting; "The fact that the separation of church and state has been supported by some who exhibited an anti-Catholic animus or a secularist bent does not impugn the validity of the principle. Champions of religious liberty have argued for the separation of church and state for reasons having nothing to do with anti-Catholicism or desire for a secular culture. Of course, separationists have opposed the Catholic Church when it has sought to tap into the public till to support its parochial schools or to argue for on-campus released time in the public schools. But that principled debate on the issues does not support a charge of religious bigotry"

Question: Who is the Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee?
Answer: J. Brent Walker

Question: What does Walker feel does not impugn the validity of the principle of separation of church and state?
Answer: supported by some who exhibited an anti-Catholic animus or a secularist bent

Question: Who have argued for the separation of church and state for reasons having nothing to do with a desire for a secular culture?
Answer: Champions of religious liberty

Question: Separationists opposed the Catholic church when it sought to do what?
Answer: tap into the public till to support its parochial schools

Question: What does a principled debate on the issues not support a charge of?
Answer: religious bigotry