romikgosai/squad_modified huggingface dataset:
The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scottish Catholic peers. The Province of West Jersey had declared, in 1681, that there should be no religious test for office. An oath had also been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution. That law was replaced by 1799.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What did the original charter of the Province of East Jersey restrict membership in its Assembly to?
A: Christians', "
Q: What was the Duke of York's relationship to his religion described as being?
A: fervently Catholic", '
Q: What religious sect were the proprietors of Perth Amboy?
A: Scottish Catholic', '
Q: What did the Province of West Jersey specify there would not be for those running for an office, in 1681?
A: religious test', '
Q: When was an oath requiring militia to abjure the pretensions of the pope replaced?
A: 1799']
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What does the first amendment to the US Constitution state?
A: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"', '
Q: What is the first part of the First Amendment know as?
A: "establishment clause"', '
Q: What is the last part of the sentence of the First Amendment known as?
A: "free exercise clause"', '
Q: What do the two clauses of the First Amendment for the basis of?
A: the Supreme Court\'s interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.', '
Q: What are citizens of the United States free to embrace or reject as they choose?
A: a faith']
Some legal scholars, such as John Baker of LSU, theorize that Madison's initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a "national religion"—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general "religion" in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown. During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison's language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.

Questions and answers:
["
Q: What is John Baker of LSU's profession?
A: legal scholars", '
Q: Why was a more general "religion" used in the language of the First Amendment?
A: to appease the Anti-Federalists', '
Q: Why was the word "national" a cause for alarm to both Federalists and Anti-Federalists?
A: because of the experience under the British crown', "
Q: Who took issue with Madison's language during the debate over the establishment clause?
A: Elbridge Gerry", "
Q: What was Elbridge Gerry's constituency? 
A: Massachusetts"]
Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which did not include establishing a national religion. Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop the clause from the first amendment.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Where was Representative Roger Sherman from?
A: Connecticut', '
Q: Why did Sherman believe the establishment clause was unnecessary? 
A: Constitution only gave Congress stated powers', '
Q: What power was not granted to Congress by the Constitution?
A: establishing a national religion', '
Q: What was Tucker concerned the establishment clause could preempt?
A: religious clauses in the state constitutions', '
Q: Where was Representative Thomas Tucker from?
A: South Carolina']
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When was the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution created?
A: post-Civil War', '
Q: What was the intent of the 14th Amendment?
A: secure rights for former slaves', '
Q: What does the 14th Amendment also introduce the concept of?
A: incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states', '
Q: What clauses does the 14th Amendment include?
A: due process and equal protection clauses', '
Q: What has the doctrine of incorporation been used to ensure?
A: application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states']
The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments. Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What landmark case has impacted all subsequent interpretations of the separation of church and state in regard to state governments?
A: Everson v. Board of Education', '
Q: What did the Supreme Court uphold in Everson v. Board of Education?
A: state law', '
Q: What did the Supreme Court hold the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to?
A: state governments', '
Q: What was a recent case involving the application of the principle of the establishment clause against states?
A: Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet', '
Q: When was the case of v. Grumet?
A: 1994']
Jefferson's concept of "separation of church and state" first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What did Jefferson\'s concept of \'separation of church and state" became part of what jurisprudence?
A: Establishment Clause', "
Q: What case was Jefferson's concept apropos to?
A: Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145", '
Q: What does the constitution guarantee when it comes to religion?
A: freedom', '
Q: What word is not defined in the Constitution?
A: religion', "
Q: Who had Jefferson's letter been sent to?
A: the Danbury Baptists"]
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."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When was the centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution made explicit?
A: 1947', '
Q: What was the topic of the Everson v. Board of Education?
A: government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools', '
Q: What case was the concept relevant?
A: Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1', '
Q: What was the case of Everson v. Board of Education the first instance of?
A: court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state', '
Q: How must the wall separating church and state be kept?
A: high and impregnable']
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."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What did the decision ultimately uphold?
A: state law', '
Q: What was the state allowed to continue to fund?
A: transportation of students to religious schools', '
Q: What did both the majority and dissenting opinions reiterate?
A: that the Constitution has erected a "wall between church and state"', '
Q: What was the disagreement between the Justices over whether funding breached what?
A: that wall', '
Q: What did Justice Jackson argue there were no grounds upon which to support what?
A: the present legislation']
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:

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When did the Supreme Court address the issue of officially sponsored prayer in public schools?
A: 1962', '
Q: What was the case in 1962 where the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially sponsored school prayer?
A: Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421', '
Q: By what vote did the Supreme Court determine it unconstitutional for state official to compose an official school prayer?
A: 6-1', "
Q: Even if a prayer is non-denominational it's still considered what?
A: unconstitutional"]
The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America." The lone dissenter, Justice Potter Stewart, objected to the court's embrace of the "wall of separation" metaphor: "I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What was one of the reasons early colonists left England to seek religious freedom in America?
A: governmentally composed prayers for religious services', "
Q: Who was the lone dissenter in the Supreme Court's ruling?
A: Justice Potter Stewart", '
Q: What did Stewart object to?
A: the court\'s embrace of the "wall of separation" metaphor', '
Q: Stewart felt the court was not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of what?
A: metaphors', '
Q: Stewart pointed out that the phrase "Wall of separation" was nowhere to be found in what?
A: the Constitution']
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."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When did the case of Epperson v. Arkansas take place?
A: 1968', '
Q: What did the Arkansas law violate the constitutional prohibition of state laws in respect to?
A: an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', "
Q: Who wrote the court's opinion in Epperson v. Arkansas?
A: Justice Abe Fortas", '
Q: What does the State have no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from?
A: views distasteful to them', '
Q: What did an Arkansas law make it a crime to teach the theory of?
A: that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals']
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."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When was the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman?
A: 1971', "
Q: What state's policy was in question in Lemon v. Kurtzman?
A: Pennsylvania", '
Q: Whose salaries were being reimbursed in private religious schools?
A: teachers of secular subjects', "
Q: What did the state's policy violate?
A: the Establishment Clause", "
Q: What did the court's decision argue that the separation of church and state could never be?
A: absolute"]
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.

Questions and answers:
["
Q: How many prongs is the Supreme COurt's test to determine if a government action comports with the Establishment Clause?
A: three", '
Q: What is the three-pronged test regarding the Establishment Clause know as?
A: "Lemon Test"', '
Q: To not violate the Establishment Clause, a law must be adopted with neutral or what purpose?
A: non-religious', '
Q: What much the primary effect of a law neither advance or inhibit?
A: religion', '
Q: Excessive entanglement occurs when a state policy results in a close relationship of what?
A: government with religion']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: How many judges were on the panel which held the Pledge of Allegiance in California public schools was unconstitutional?
A: three', '
Q: When did the three judge panel make their ruling?
A: 2002', '
Q: What did both houses of Congress pass measures reaffirming their support for?
A: the Pledge of Allegiance', '
Q: Why was the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow overturned?
A: procedural grounds', '
Q: What did the five-justice majority hold that Newdow lacked?
A: standing to sue']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When did the US Court of Appeals rule in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County?
A: December 20, 2005', '
Q: What was displayed in Kentucky courthouses?
A: the Ten Commandments', '
Q: What did a federal judge rule must be removed from public property?
A: the cross', '
Q: When was a ruling handed down on the Mount Soledad cross controversy?
A: May 3, 2006', '
Q: Why were the displays of the ten Commandments allowed?
A: secular in nature']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What case is in regards to whether prayers at town meetings must allow various faiths?
A: Town of Greece v. Galloway', '
Q: When did the Supreme Court rule on Town of Greece v. Galloway?
A: May 5, 2014', "
Q: What was the Supreme Court's final vote in Town of Greece v. Galloway?
A: 5-4", '
Q: Who did the Supreme Court rule in favor of?
A: Town of Greece', '
Q: What did the Supreme Court rule the Constitution allowed for?
A: sectarian prayers']
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."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What do some organizations disagree with the notion of?
A: separation of church and state', '
Q: What do the critics argue the phrase misrepresents?
A: the textual requirements of the Constitution', '
Q: What do scholars also disagree with about the way the Supreme Court has interpreted what?
A: constitutional limitation on religious establishment', '
Q: What do critics note were intermingled at the time the Constitution was ratified?
A: many aspects of church and state', "
Q: What do these critics argue couldn't have been intended by the framers of the constitution?
A: prevalent degree of separation of church and state"]