Asked by Randeisha Glenn on May 29, 2024
Verified
Van Orden v.Perry (2005) and McCreary v.ACLU (2005) show that
A) the issue of government-sponsored religion has not yet been definitively settled.
B) there are different opinions about the establishment clause and whether it should apply to states as well as the federal government.
C) the free exercise clause has still not been incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment.
D) the Lemon test does not apply to cases involving school prayer.
McCreary
Likely refers to McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, a significant U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the Establishment Clause and religious displays on public property.
Van Orden
Refers to Van Orden v. Perry, a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the display of the Ten Commandments on public property.
Establishment Clause
A clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, thereby ensuring the separation of church and state.
- Acknowledge the impact of critical Supreme Court rulings on First Amendment privileges, specifically concerning the freedoms of speech and religion.
Verified Answer
DM
David McIntoshJun 03, 2024
Final Answer :
A
Explanation :
Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary v. ACLU both dealt with the issue of government-sponsored religion, specifically regarding the display of the Ten Commandments in public spaces. These cases show that there is still some uncertainty and disagreement about how the Establishment Clause should be applied in different contexts, and that there is ongoing debate about the appropriate balance between religious expression and government neutrality toward religion.
Learning Objectives
- Acknowledge the impact of critical Supreme Court rulings on First Amendment privileges, specifically concerning the freedoms of speech and religion.