Many of those arguing against gay marriage in America use Christian biblical reference as the precedent. Building upon our readings from last week, does the Supreme Court have the right to set mandates based on religious beliefs? How does this challenge the wall of separation? Is the wall of separation already violated by presidential proclamations, public oaths and even our currency?
500 words© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 9:36 am ad1c9bdddf
From an ethical point of view, the Supreme Court would not have the right to set mandates based on religious beliefs, largely due to the fact that there is supposedly a separation of church and state within this nation. The fact of the matter seems to be that the Supreme Court does have the legal right to set mandates based upon religious beliefs, largely due to the fact that the laws of this nation are based upon Judeo-Christian legal concepts. In essence, although there is a theoretical separation of church and state, which would rationally include a separation of church and law, in reality, this separation does not entirely exist within our legal system. Due to this factor, theoretically the Supreme Court cannot and should not set mandates based on religious beliefs, except in situations ...
This solution describes some Supreme Court decisions that seem to reflect religious beliefs.
Reflections on the First amendment are discussed.
I need at least two significant cases related to three of the provisions of the First amendment are discussed.
Why did each case need to be heard and interpreted by the Supreme Court?
How does the Supreme Court's decsion in each case continue to affect the rights of American citizens today?
Cite at least three sources to support the content