Talk:Establishment Clause

C

Property Tax
Can anyone explain the justification for religious buildings to be exempt from property tax? Does anyone know more about this? The clause says that they wont "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Allowing them to be exempt from taxes seems to be respecing an establishment of religion. They are respecting that a church is exempt, while I am not, because I am not a church. This seems to be respecting religion. They give preferential treatment to a church, simply because it is an establishment of religion. A business owner has to pay the taxes, because they are not an establishment of religion. Doesnt seem to fit with the clause. Anybody know more about it? how does this work? how are churches tax-exempt?72.174.2.252 10:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it might be because churches are nonprofit organazitions, and give money back to the community.

I really don't know. I could be they just get tax-deductions from that money.

RJRocket53 02:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Its because the government wants to be as compleatly seperated from religion as possible plus taxing a religious building could hold a hiderence to the establishment of the religion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.151.151 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of a religion...". It is not until 1866 that the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to state action. There is no Congressionally established property tax (in the United States as far as I know all property taxes are local; I am not aware of a statewide property tax). Property tax laws generally exclude most non-profit religious and charitable organizations (such as non-profit hospitals etc), not just churches. As a matter of administrative convenience, a lot of property tax laws piggyback on the federal tax code definition of a 501(c)(3) organization; i.e. one to which contributions are deductible in computing federal income tax.Jmarsh48 (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * More precisely, the 14th amendment provided for a doctrine of incorporation that allows SCOTUS to apply the protections of the Bill of Rights to individuals against the states, and the establishment clause wasn't incorporated until later (1925 if I'm not mistaken).Skberry889 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

other
The requirement that religion not be a requirement for public office and that oaths for public office include a religious oath are important to understanding the Establishment Clause. The records of the state ratification conventions concerning these clauses are illuminating. They shed light on the original intent of the Establishment Clause75Janice 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)75Janice 5:55 UTC 30 December 2006.
 * Do you have any sources? I'm not doubting you, but I would certainly like to see the minutes taken from the ratifying conventions.  They probably merit inclusion, but this can't be determined without having read them.Skberry889 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Locke vs. Davey
Locke vs. Davey 540 U.S. 712 (2004) held that it is permissible under the U.S. Constitution to exclude religious programs of study from government funding programs - if state law requires such an exclusions (thus upholding various Blaine Amendments). This is an important case that deserves a section as it undermines many previous arguements against Blaine Amendments (the arguements were based on the establishment clause) Stealthymatt 01:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

school prayer
In this section it states that neither the lord's prayer nor the bible may be read in a state school; one presumes that this isn't the case in R.E. lessons! Is this true, and if so it should be added to the article. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d  ( Suggestion? | wanna chat? ) 21:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you are referring to by "R.E.", but my understanding is that you can teach passages from the Bible, Koran, or other religious texts as examples of literature, or in the study of religions, as long as you do not promote any one religion. Reading the Lord's Prayer or any other Bible passage as a religious or ceremonial act would be prohibited. Wschart (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that might be "Remedial English", though I'm not certain. Either way, I agree with the original point. The section "State-sanctioned prayer in public schools" includes the sentence "The reading of the Lord's Prayer or of the Bible in the classroom of a public school by the teacher was ruled unconstitutional in 1963." I find this too vague. It gives me the impression that a teacher reading the Bible or Lord's Prayer in the classroom for any purpose is unconstitutional. The sentence apparently references the case in the next paragraph, which states "the mandatory reading", instead of just, "the reading." Since P1 is the a summary of actions in the 60's, the sentence belongs, but I feel it needs clarified.
 * "RE" is a standard British abbreviation for Religious education. I presume that is that is compulsory being referred to here.  Most of the RE I did at my schools would more accurately be described as religious instruction, which I gather would have been unconstitutional in the US, although a neutral, academic education about religions would presumably be ok. Iapetus (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Abington Township v. Schempp quotes the ruling, and makes it clear that the issue is not that the verses are being read, but that the entire situation constituted a state-mandated religious ceremony.


 * I'm abstaining from changing this myself, as I've never contributed to WikiPedia before. Pmneeley (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

State Religions
As I understand it, many states had state churches during and after ratification of the Constitution; and in fact, the original role of this clause was to protect these state churches. It might be useful to point this out somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Agreed, it should be added. I'm definitely a Wiki-noob, so I've no idea if this kind of source is appropriate, but from "Rethinking the Incorporation of the Establishment Clause: A Federalist View," Harvard Law Review Vol. 105, No. 7.(May, 1992), p. 1703: "In fact, the Establishment Clause was enacted to prevent Congress from interfering with the church-state relationships that existed in 1791. Specifically, the Establishment Clause was intended to prevent Congress from interfering with the established state churches and with state efforts to accommodate religion. At the same time, the Clause disabled Congress from interfering with the states that had already disestablished their churches. In other words, the Establishment Clause was intended to embody a principle of federalism."

''The law review then cites several sources as accommodating this analysis. I'll post them here in case someone more zealous than I wants to find them for whatever amount of extra validity they bring to the edit'': WILBERG. KATZ, RELIGION AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONS 8-10 (1964); Edward S. Corwin, The Supreme Court as National School Board, 14 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 3, 14 (1949); Clifton B. Kruse, Jr., The Historical Meaning and Judicial Construction of the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment, WASHBURNL.J. 65, 66 (1962); Joseph M. Snee, Religious Disestablishment and the Fourteenth Amendment, 1954 WASH. U. L.Q. 371, 372-73, 406-07 --00:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)72.29.211.18 (talk) Fangrim

[-unindent-] OK, so the view is notable, with a big, huge, BUT.

Clarence Thomas endorsed in Newdow v. Elk Grove School Dist. 542 U.S. 1, 49-54 (2004)(Concurring opinion of Thomas, J.) However, it must be pointed up that this is an extreme minority view. Not ONE other Justice joined Thomas's special concurrence. It would give this borderline fringe view undue weight to suggest anything else.

The whole concept is dubious. Although there are some historical arguments, the overall logic is piss-poor. The whole idea starts with two accurate premises:


 * (A) the Bill of Rights, and 1st Amendment, were meant only to apply to the Federal Government, not state governments, at the time of the framing; AND
 * (B) therefore, originally, the U.S. Constitution was not meant to suppress state sponsorship of religion by the several states.

OK, both true.

But the conclusion is that (C) the Establishment Clause was meant to PROMOTE state government from sponsoring religion and SHOULDN'T BE INCORPORATED. How do we get from "not limiting" to "encouraging?" The U.S. Constitution did not encourage states do anything except make their own new state governments. If the bill of rights was not a limit on the several states, only the Federal gov't, why would it be interpreted as implicitly encouraging state government? Simple: it wasn't.

The STRONGEST logical position you can take is that the Establishment clause didn't limit states from sponsoring religion in its earliest form. To conclude, as Thomas does in Newdow, that the Establishment clause SHOULDN'T BE incorporated, you need some other kind of support.

This also ignores the fact that since the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has treated the Bill of Rights as applying equally to State governments under the "Incorporation doctrine." It is now unconstutitional for a state to treat an individual in any way that the Federal government may not; there is no longer that double standard whereby State voters can vote to restrict their own rights or tyrannize themselves as they once had the freedom to do. The problem with a "states exempt" establishment clause is that it would bring back that double standard.

It would also run into loggerheads with the coordinate first amendment religion clause re: Free Exercise. Basically, if States start sponsoring one religion, any religion, they will de facto be descriminating against every other religion, or against non-religion. This is bad news. States should NOT go there. Even if it may once have been legal to do so, we live in a different time now, once in which the Federal government has a lot more power and the Federal Constitution creates a lot more rights, and has no problem telling the states what to do, and what not to do. That being the case, there are virtually no takers for the idea that the Establishment clause shouldn't have been incorporated, or should be unincorporated. It would be a disaster on so many levels. Only one notable guy really wants to create that disaster.

In fact, when you really get to the bottom of it, the people pushing "unincorporation" of the Establishment clause tend to be the kind of people who simultaneously argue that there should be no incorporation, that the 14th Amendment is a fraud, that the 1st Amendment should not create as many rights as it does, etc.; this is one more crazy argument in a big bundle of crazy arguments that people who want a more theocratic America advance. Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither OP nor I ever posited that the Establishment Clause legitimizes the national government's "promotion" or "encouragement" of state religion, nor do we argue that the Establishment Clause remains unincorporated. Your strawman attack against Thomas's stance in Newdow is irrelevant.
 * Given that this wiki page is *not* limited in content to what modern constitutional law makes of the Establishment Clause, that at its inception it served to prevent the national government from both establishing *and* *disestablishing* state religions is accurate and topical.72.29.211.131 (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Fangrim


 * The modern doctrine of incorporation only applies after the introduction of the 14th amendment, so jurisprudence before that time is largely utterly irrelevant to the point at hand. Before then, states could violate the bill of rights willy nilly. The fact that some violated would have violated the second amendment in the past by establishing state churches before the second amendment applies to them has no standing on whether or not it should apply now that the second amendment does.108.131.118.21 (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Major Overhaul Needed
This page needs a major overhaul. This is a pretty shoddy article, given the rather important subject matter. I think that a quality article on the Establishment Clause should include at least an analysis of the 18th century understanding of the clause, a history of the clause up though Hugo Black and the incorporation doctrine, a section on the "taxpayer standing" exception given to Establishment Clause lawsuits under Flast v. Cohen, and the modern critique of Establishment Clause jurisprudence as best articulated by Justice Clarence Thomas in his Newdow dissent.


 * I agree re historical context. Broke that issue out into its own section on this discussion page. Jordan 22:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanotto (talk • contribs)


 * Regarding this topic, more consistency is needed as well. The article flip-flops between three different versions of initial-capping the phrase: Establishment Clause, establishment clause, and Establishment clause. Which is correct? This is an encyclopedia and should therefore be a go-to guide for stuff like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.0.18 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have made the capitalization consistent.  I did not see anything in the Wikipedia Manual of Style to give me guidance.  The article in Wikipedia on the Free Exercise Clause consistently capitalizes all three words.  On that basis, I have capitalized both words in "Establishment Clause" in this article.Dulcimermusic 03:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw

It also needs to be renamed. "Establishment Clause" is a revisionist title given to the clause by parochial law schools. It should be called the "Prohibition on Establishment Clause" or the "Anti-Establishment Clause". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300B:7F5:6000:35F9:183C:4AD8:C77B (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Not that it matters
...but, I think the final paragraph, mentioning the depictions of Moses with the Ten Commandments, and Mohammed, on the actual US Supreme Court building is very good. For those who feel seperation of church and state has gone beyond what the Framers had in mind, it is a good piece of evidence. For those, like me, who just love a good irony, it is hilarious. Just imagine, a Supreme Court justice saying, "Religious figures on government buildings, like the ones we have outside, are unconstitutional, so you must get rid of yours, defendant from some state. We'll keep ours, though." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.111.205 (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that I have spent much time thinking about this post but it seems to me that an artistic depiction of historical/mythical lawgivers differs somewhat from an explicit list of religious commandments such as "I am the lord thy god, thou shalt have no other gods before me". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feloniousd (talk • contribs) 10:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical context?
I think it'd be worthwhile to add some historical context to the Clause, including prior versions of it. Jordan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanotto (talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Chaplains
If there has been some arguments over the Constitutionality of chaplains in Congress, I think it should be added. Masternachos (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Protecting the State from the Church
Recently, while editing the Separation of church and state in the United States article, I came across, which characterizes the Establishment Clause as having been meant to prevent the church from exercising undue influence over the state, ... preventing the church from attaining sovereign power. I haven't incorperated this characterization into either article, but thought I would mention it here. Also see here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

False dichotomy
"The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another."

There's nothing preventing it from doing both. I can't be the first person to have noticed this. This article seems extremely thin on substantiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MlleMFT (talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I too noticed this. But what I do not understand is how prohibithing the establishment of a national religion by Congress can stop people from expressing their religion in public and on public land. Would this clause also prohibit the government from prohibiting citizens from doing so? That is as long as the religious practices do not cause physical harm to others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeevo (talk • contribs) 20:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No. The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause generally prevents the government from placing undue burdens on religious exercise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainsail (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't stop people from expressing their religion on public grounds (you can still pray in a court house), it stops the government from expressing any one religion on public ground (as this would be favoring this religion over others). In theory the government could, under this clause, put up religious monuments celebrating all religions and non-religious belief systems equally; however this would be quite an undertaking (it would have to be one big monument to display all religious iconography from all over the world). 107.10.53.28 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Reynolds v United States
This marks the incorporation of Jefferson's "separation of church and state" into Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The section noting the 1940's ruling is misleading. Phyesalis (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Origin Section
As someone previously noted, the Origin section does not contain a single source. This is problematic.

First, Col. Thomas Barber was actually a lieutenant and his name was Thomas Barbour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Barbour

Second, Barbour was an antifederalist running against Madison in the March, 1787 election for the Virginia ratification delegation. Although there is an argument to be made that Barbour's political clout forced Madison to meet with Leland and mollify his concerns over the lack of affirmative religious protection in the Constitution. (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1262520) It is wildly speculative to say "The establishment clause arose during James Madison's efforts to have the constitution ratified." The statement makes it sound as though there would be no establishment clause were it not for Barbour and Leland. This is preposterous. Reading the federalist papers or The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, which was penned by Jefferson in 1786, will quickly disabuse anyone of the notion that the Founder's interest in the the first amendment and religious freedoms arose solely, or even partially, as a result of Madison's desire to win a County election.--142.129.187.236 (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I propose that we remove this paragraph and copy instead from a paragraph in the article Religion in the United States (complying with the requirements stated in the article on copying within Wikipedia)  The paragraph in Religion in the United States reads:


 * Modeling the provisions concerning religion within the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the framers of the Constitution rejected any religious test for office, and the First Amendment specifically denied the federal government any power to enact any law respecting either an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise, thus protecting any religious organization, institution, or denomination from government interference. The decision was mainly influenced by European Rationalist and Protestant ideals, but was also a consequence of the pragmatic concerns of minority religious groups and small states that did not want to be under the power or influence of a national religion that did not represent them.


 * We could leave out the clause "the framers rejected any religious test for office" since that is not relevant to the article. We could possibly include a brief mention that Mark Scarberry argues that John Leland played a role in making sure that this clause was included in the Bill of rights.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Scarberry's arguments are fascinating and it is undoubtedly true that Leland deserves more attention than he gets. My concern was that the inclusion of Leland in an brief section, and without proper context, could artificially inflate his importance (even more so in the case of Barbour). Now, if someone is willing to put in the legwork and start drafting a longer, more detailed, Origin section I would: a) lend some of my free time to the effort; and b) have no problem with a reference to Leland. I would write the section myself, but to be perfectly honest I'm far too busy. I also spend most of my day writing about legal issues; generally I try, to the extent possible, to avoid thinking about the subject during my personal time.--142.129.187.236 (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph I proposed above is too general. Instead, I re-named the section "Historical background" and added a sub-section on the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The careful reader will note that since Madison campaigned for the Virginia Statute, he was every bit as opposed to an established church as Leland was.

We still need more detail so that we are not giving too much weight to Madison's meeting with Leland. I plan to add another sub-section on the promise of a Bill of Rights in response to Mason's demand. The Federalists argued that it was not necessary to add a Bill of rights because the Federal government would not have any of the powers mentioned in the Bill of Rights (including the right to create an established church) even if the Bill of rights was not added to the Constitution.

I am not an expert on this topic. Any help from other contributors would be appreciated.Dulcimer music (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Disestablishment of the Anglican church in 1786
An article on the Disestablishment of the Anglican church in 1786 would be very appreciated... I thought about starting it but I found myself incredibly puzzled: well, maybe that's the reason noone has thought about dealing with this subject. Comments are welcome.   M  aurice    C arbonaro     08:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... I guess you're referring to the 1786 disestablishment of the Anglican church in Virginia, which is mentioned in a number of WP articles (Thomas Jefferson and religion and elsewhere). That topic probably meets WP:GNG, but it seems a pretty narrow scope for an article. According to, the Anglican church was established in the states of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia (and in New York City and three neighboring counties) and the Congregational church was established in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. That source says that a number of U.S. states disestablished their established churches between 1776 and 1789, with disestablishment eventually becoming universal in the U.S. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be worthwhile to create an article Former state churches in British North America. We would provide a main article link to this article from State religion.Dulcimermusic 04:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)JDefauw
 * Hey, what a surprise... Thank you both (Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) and JDefauw (talk)) for taking the time to answer telling me about the existence of "Thomas Jefferson and religion" and "State_religion" article/section: but no I was expecting something connected with:
 * the Thirteen Colonies,
 * Colonial government in the Thirteen Colonies or
 * British America
 * honestly... but that's a good start!
 * Interesting citation: "Encyclopedia Of Religion In The South" pp. 260–261!. :O)   M  aurice    C arbonaro     12:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing debate, not yet decided
Some people seem to think that this has already been decided and set in stone. If it were, we wouldn't have ongoing discussion at the Supreme Court level. According to this source historians and scholars do not agree on what was intended in the original language. I propose to include the explanation in the lede. From the Constitutional Law: Principles and Practice. USchick (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you propose to include. I suggest that you propose specific language here for discussion and comment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At the end of the introduction I propose to add – "Scholars and historians do not agree on what the language originally intended, leaving it up to the interpretation of future legislation." Or something like that. USchick (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Scotus ruling in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky
This edit caught my eye. It changed the word illegal in "the Court ruled 5-4 that displays of the Ten Commandments in several Kentucky county courthouses were illegal because they were not clearly integrated with a secular display" to read unconstitutional instead, saying "Religious displays: Illegal is not a proper term for this, it was unconstitutional".

I'm not a lawyer, but an observations and some questions come to mind


 * It looks to me as if what SCOTUS did in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky was to affirm a 6th Circuit appeals court ruling which had affirmed a district court ruling granting a permanent injunction prohibiting display of three particular Ten Commandments displays.
 * Is the detailed explanation in the SCOTUS opinion written by Justice Souter precedential or is it obiter dictum?
 * Does the SCOTUS ruling rise to the level of a ruling that these displays were either illegal or unconstutional (and, if so, which one: illegal, or unconstitutional)?
 * Does the SCOTUS ruling apply only to these three displays, or also to other displays which have some degree of similarity to these three displays?

Does the article need further update regarding this? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

OR in the lead?
This edit caught my eye. Asserting without support that the Establishment Clause "... tends to allow for a greater harmony amongst all of the many denominations in the United States" seems to me to cross the line as far as unsupported editorial interpretation goes. Perhaps this would be better placed in a body section on Interpretation with source supported content. Googling around, I see Major Theories on Establishment Clause Interpretation at  There are probably more sources out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Authorship
This edit caught ny eye. The edit changed an article assertion which credited Fisher Ames with authorship to credit James Madison instead. No source is cited to support either credit. Googling around, I find that seemingly contradicts both. That source says, in part: "Madison’s original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: 'The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'$1$ The language was altered in the House to read: 'Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.'$2$""

Footnotes 1 and 2 read: "1 1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789). 2 The committee appointed to consider Madison’s proposals, and on which Madison served, with Vining as chairman, had rewritten the religion section to read: “No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.” After some debate during which Madison suggested that the word “national” might be inserted before the word “religion” as “point[ing] the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent,” the House adopted a substitute reading: “Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 729–31 (August 15, 1789). On August 20, on motion of Fisher Ames, the language of the clause as quoted in the text was adopted. Id. at 766. According to Madison’s biographer, “[t]here can be little doubt that this was written by Madison.” I. Brant, James Madison—Father of the Constitution 1787–1800 at 271 (1950)."

WP:DUE suggests to me that some of this ought to be mentioned in this article. I'm neither a topical expert nor much of a wordsmith, so I will suggest that other editors make that addition. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Establishment Clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614000457/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org:80/faclibrary/libraryreligion.aspx?topic=establishment_clause_supreme_court_cases_topic to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/libraryreligion.aspx?topic=establishment_clause_supreme_court_cases_topic

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Page move
Without discussion, certainly without any consensus, this page was moved to "Anti-establishment Clause." The section of the constitution has been known as the "Establishment Clause" for decades, if not centuries in US constitutional law. I tried doing a search for "anti-establishment clause" and I found no reliable sources that suggested that usage. I think we should be very careful in moving important, well-written articles like this without an important discussion between experienced editors. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Rowan County, North Carolina
Rowan County, North Carolina, July 2017, ruling http://www.wral.com/appeals-court-board-s-prayer-practice-is-unconstitutional/16819526/

states, ""The principle at stake here may be a profound one, but it is also simple. The Establishment Clause does not permit a seat of government to wrap itself in a single faith," Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in the majority opinion that was joined by nine other judges."--Wikipietime (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Establishment Clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516032845/http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf to http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)