Free Essay Sample on Religion and the Law

The free exercise clause and the establishment clause, and how do they differ from each other?

The differences between the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment clause is that the prior is concerned with safeguarding individuals rights in religion. The establishment clause is largely a structural restraint that relies more on governmental power. Its structural nature allows the Establishment clause to limit on issues of legislating and otherwise doing something those points out to the "respect of an establishment of religion." The free exercise does not give details about other injuries regarding protecting against encumbrances that are on the use of one's property. The clause does not also put suctions to forced religious oath taking by freethinking atheists. The clause supports all-purpose conscience. The reason behind is since a person may suffer from a loss of economic harm in religion, others include academic freedom loss if the same person is agnostic or atheistic which are individual harms that are not religious harms.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The establishment clause is concerned with the protection of people rights that is religious rights. The protection of the individual rights is achieved through delimiting and qualifying the government sovereignty; the structure embarks on much secure personal rights (Robertson, 2011).

Recent controversies surrounding the maintenance of a "wall of separation" between church and state

Many of the Americans have been conditioned in such a way that they think that there should be a "wall of separation between Churches and States. The Establishment and free-exercise clauses were made so that they could protect religion, such that the government could not intrude. The understanding of the acceptance of the raison d'etre that is stated in the Bill of rights that takes into account limitation of the federal government power. The establishment of a bill of right was to make sure that was a declaration in place that states what the federal government can do. However, the first amendment's intent was never to make sure that it is subdividing the church and state.

Recent controversies involving the free exercise of religion, and how have they been addressed by the justices of the Supreme Court?

In the United States recently there has erupted the issue of religion and discrimination against gay people. The laws have been there in the past since 1993, but have erupted controversies since there have been federal and state laws that are touching on important religious issues (Merriman, 2007).

A recent controversy regarding granting of churches grants was concluded, where the court sided with the church. Court sided with the Missouri church which recently had been left out when grants were being offered to rebuild its playground; the case was concluded that the churches being excluded from the state programs is a violation of the constitution where it was supported by the free exercise religion.

Therefore, the government should not discriminate over the church simply because it is a religious institution is a violation of the constitutional right and therefore should not stand. The first amendment is very important in such a way that it should not separate churches and the state but rather reunite them. In such a case where the state is involved and violating the constitutional right to grant money to the church was the reason why such a law was brought about in the first place.

Reference

Merriman, S. A. (2007). Religion and the law in America: An encyclopedia of personal belief and public policy. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.

Robertson, P. (2011). Courting disaster: How the supreme court is usurping the power of congress and the people.