yz2022/T2P-DownstreamNLP huggingface dataset:
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Robert S. Wood has argued that the United States is a model for the world in terms of how a separation of church and state—no state-run or state-established church—is good for both the church and the state, allowing a variety of religions to flourish. Speaking at the Toronto-based Center for New Religions, Wood said that the freedom of conscience and assembly allowed under such a system has led to a "remarkable religiosity" in the United States that isn't present in other industrialized nations. Wood believes that the U.S. operates on "a sort of civic religion," which includes a generally-shared belief in a creator who "expects better of us." Beyond that, individuals are free to decide how they want to believe and fill in their own creeds and express their conscience. He calls this approach the "genius of religious sentiment in the United States."

Question: What does having no state-run or state-established allow a variety of religions to do?
Answer: flourish

Question: Who has argued the United States is a model for the world in separation of church and state is a good thing?
Answer: Robert S. Wood
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
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
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: Requiring oaths invoking God are today deemed to be in violation of what?
Answer: federal First Amendment

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

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

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
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 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
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 was the Supreme Court's final vote in Town of Greece v. Galloway?
Answer: 5-4
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 do states violate the clause require state office-holders to possess?
Answer: particular religious beliefs
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
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 school is Philip Hamburger associated with?
Answer: Columbia Law school
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 religious freedom result from?
Answer: an alliance of unlikely partners
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Robert S. Wood has argued that the United States is a model for the world in terms of how a separation of church and state—no state-run or state-established church—is good for both the church and the state, allowing a variety of religions to flourish. Speaking at the Toronto-based Center for New Religions, Wood said that the freedom of conscience and assembly allowed under such a system has led to a "remarkable religiosity" in the United States that isn't present in other industrialized nations. Wood believes that the U.S. operates on "a sort of civic religion," which includes a generally-shared belief in a creator who "expects better of us." Beyond that, individuals are free to decide how they want to believe and fill in their own creeds and express their conscience. He calls this approach the "genius of religious sentiment in the United States."

Question: What does Wood call the approach of allowing individuals the freedom to decide what they want to believe?
Answer: genius of religious sentiment in the United States
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: How many propositions make up the separationist position on the Establishment Clause?
Answer: two

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
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 does Hamburger feel the modern concept of separation of church and state is rooted in?
Answer: American anti-Catholicism
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 profession does Frank Lambert have?
Answer: historian

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

Robert S. Wood has argued that the United States is a model for the world in terms of how a separation of church and state—no state-run or state-established church—is good for both the church and the state, allowing a variety of religions to flourish. Speaking at the Toronto-based Center for New Religions, Wood said that the freedom of conscience and assembly allowed under such a system has led to a "remarkable religiosity" in the United States that isn't present in other industrialized nations. Wood believes that the U.S. operates on "a sort of civic religion," which includes a generally-shared belief in a creator who "expects better of us." Beyond that, individuals are free to decide how they want to believe and fill in their own creeds and express their conscience. He calls this approach the "genius of religious sentiment in the United States."

Question: Where is the Center for New Religions located?
Answer: Toronto
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 is the name of Lambert's book?
Answer: The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Robert S. Wood has argued that the United States is a model for the world in terms of how a separation of church and state—no state-run or state-established church—is good for both the church and the state, allowing a variety of religions to flourish. Speaking at the Toronto-based Center for New Religions, Wood said that the freedom of conscience and assembly allowed under such a system has led to a "remarkable religiosity" in the United States that isn't present in other industrialized nations. Wood believes that the U.S. operates on "a sort of civic religion," which includes a generally-shared belief in a creator who "expects better of us." Beyond that, individuals are free to decide how they want to believe and fill in their own creeds and express their conscience. He calls this approach the "genius of religious sentiment in the United States."

Question: What does Wood believe the U.S. operates on?
Answer: a sort of civic religion
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 is the profession of Philip Hamburger?
Answer: professor

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

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: 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

Question: What type of secularism came to dominate American public life?
Answer: pervasive
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
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: Separationists opposed the Catholic church when it sought to do what?
Answer: tap into the public till to support its parochial schools

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

The second main principle, sola fide (by faith alone), states that faith in Christ is sufficient alone for eternal salvation. Though argued from scripture, and hence logically consequent to sola scriptura, this is the guiding principle of the work of Luther and the later reformers. Because sola scriptura placed the Bible as the only source of teaching, sola fide epitomises the main thrust of the teaching the reformers wanted to get back to, namely the direct, close, personal connection between Christ and the believer, hence the reformers' contention that their work was Christocentric.

Question: What did reformers considered their beliefs to be, in terms of focus?
Answer: Christocentric
Protestantism

Protestantism is a form of Christian faith and practice which originated with the Protestant Reformation,[a] a movement against what its followers considered to be errors in the Roman Catholic Church. It is one of the three major divisions of Christendom, together with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Anglicanism is sometimes considered to be independent from Protestantism.[b] The term derives from the letter of protestation from Lutheran princes in 1529 against an edict condemning the teachings of Martin Luther as heretical.

Question: Whose teachings were once considered to be heretical?
Answer: Martin Luther
Protestantism

The second main principle, sola fide (by faith alone), states that faith in Christ is sufficient alone for eternal salvation. Though argued from scripture, and hence logically consequent to sola scriptura, this is the guiding principle of the work of Luther and the later reformers. Because sola scriptura placed the Bible as the only source of teaching, sola fide epitomises the main thrust of the teaching the reformers wanted to get back to, namely the direct, close, personal connection between Christ and the believer, hence the reformers' contention that their work was Christocentric.

Question: What is the second principle of Protestantism?
Answer: sola fide (by faith alone)