rajpurkar/squad huggingface dataset:
Title: 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
Title: 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
Title: 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
Title: Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

In 2002, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in a California public school was unconstitutional, even when students were not compelled to recite it, due to the inclusion of the phrase "under God." In reaction to the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, both houses of Congress passed measures reaffirming their support for the pledge, and condemning the panel's ruling. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was ultimately overturned in June 2004, solely on procedural grounds not related to the substantive constitutional issue. Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue.

Question: How many judges were on the panel which held the Pledge of Allegiance in California public schools was unconstitutional?
Answer: three

Question: When did the three judge panel make their ruling?
Answer: 2002

Question: What did both houses of Congress pass measures reaffirming their support for?
Answer: the Pledge of Allegiance

Question: Why was the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow overturned?
Answer: procedural grounds

Question: What did the five-justice majority hold that Newdow lacked?
Answer: standing to sue
Title: 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
Title: 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
Title: 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
Title: 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
Title: 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
Title: 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
Title: 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
Title: 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
Title: 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
Title: 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
Title: 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
Title: Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Steven Waldman notes that; "The evangelicals provided the political muscle for the efforts of Madison and Jefferson, not merely because they wanted to block official churches but because they wanted to keep the spiritual and secular worlds apart." "Religious freedom resulted from an alliance of unlikely partners," writes the historian Frank Lambert in his book The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. "New Light evangelicals such as Isaac Bachus and John Leland joined forces with Deists and skeptics such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to fight for a complete separation of church and state."

Question: What did evangelicals want to keep apart?
Answer: the spiritual and secular worlds

Question: What did religious freedom result from?
Answer: an alliance of unlikely partners

Question: What profession does Frank Lambert have?
Answer: historian

Question: What is the name of Lambert's book?
Answer: The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America

Question: What did Deists and skeptics join together to fight for?
Answer: a complete separation of church and state
Title: Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Robert N. Bellah has in his writings that although the separation of church and state is grounded firmly in the constitution of the United States, this does not mean that there is no religious dimension in the political society of the United States. He used the term "Civil Religion" to describe the specific relation between politics and religion in the United States. His 1967 article analyzes the inaugural speech of John F. Kennedy: "Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension."

Question: What does Bellah say the separation of church and state is grounded firmly in?
Answer: constitution of the United States

Question: Whose speech does Bellah's 1967 article analyze?
Answer: John F. Kennedy

Question: What does Bellah use the term "civil religion' to describe?
Answer: the specific relation between politics and religion

Question: What word does Bellah ask how a President is justified to use?
Answer: God

Question: What has the separation of church and state failed to deny the political realm of?
Answer: a religious dimension