Usuario:Ruby144/Taller
Apariencia
- Patrick M. Garry, The Myth of Separation: America's Historical Experience with Church and State, 33 Hofstra L. Rev. 475, 486 (enlace roto disponible en este archivo). (2004) (noting that "the strict separationist view was wholly rejected by every justice on the Marshall and Taney courts.")
- Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (enlace roto disponible en este archivo). (U.S. 1952): "The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State.".
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (enlace roto disponible en este archivo). (1971): "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense."</ref> In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. In a minority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference. Rehnquist made numerous citations of cases that rebutted the idea of a total wall of separation between Church and State. A result of such reasoning was Supreme Court support for government payments to faith-based community projects. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.[1]