It has been made clear to me that there is no such thing as "religious freedom" in this once great country of ours. We are completely far from what our ancestors wanted us to be. Religious foundations and beliefs, which were sacred, have fallen between the cracks of our now "postmodern" society. A country founded on the strict principle of religious liberty and freedom has now transformed into a country dominated by misinterpretations and legal jargon. We, as interpreters of the jurisprudence of the law and the constitutionality of that same law, have gone and completely torn down that which drove and fueled early America. This is extremely unpleasant. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The court issued a decision that, in my opinion, is a strict and narrow interpretation of the religion clauses of the First Amendment of the Constitution. This court's conduct has completely overlooked the historical facts and assumptions present here today. The court's decision ordering the cities of Zion and Rolling Meadows, Illinois, to remove "religious" symbols from their city seals and emblems has transformed the lemon test into something that is no longer specific in nature, used to the protection of America's own interests, but for something that serves to target and inhibit the free exercise of religion itself. It is quite clear, and it has certainly been made clear by each of the city councils here today, that there was no real emphasis on sectarian religion in either city. The designs of each emblem and logo have certain historical pretexts that explain the origins of each logo in question. Sure, the City of Zion logo had some religious intent, but as anyone can see from the testimony given by the mayor and city council members, the only reason why [the seals and logos] remained unchanged in all these years it was in honor of the history behind it. the seals and logos themselves. Certainly this would not be considered an attempt to promote religion, but simply an attempt to honor a prominent figure in the city's history. In the case of Marsh v. Chambers, Supreme Court Justice Brennan states: "The Court's primary argument for an exception to prayer laws is historical... this is, however, a case in which, in the absence of appeal to history by of the Court, there would be no doubt that the practice in question was unconstitutional" (Emmerich/Adams 12-13). This is a quote from a precedent-setting case on paid legislative chaplains. The case centered on a Presbyterian minister who opened each session of the Nebraska state legislature with a prayer. This chaplain was paid for his duties performed. As anyone can clearly read in J. Brennan's dissent, the court supported paid legislative chaplains simply for the sake of history. He continues his dissent by explaining that if the Lemon test were applied (which is the test in question); the procedure would be clearly unconstitutional. Now, assuming that the two cases compared have two different issues of discussion (legislative prayer and religious symbols), the principle in Marsh v. Chambers is that our highest court upheld an act that is in clear violation of the Establishment Clause, and did so only on the basis of historical fact and pleading. Simply because the United States has practiced an act for a period of time, it does not except the act from adhering to the Constitution. Or, if it does, then this too must become a "test", just as the Lemon test itself came into our possession and intoour practice. I think it would suffice to say that the court here today did not consider the full scope of these clauses, nor did it treat all the evidence in question fairly and justly. Another instance that focuses on historical principles is one that argued “In God We Trust” will be printed on all of our currency. In the case Aronow v. United States, the court found that the use of this motto was "patriotic or ceremonial in character and bears no real resemblance to government sponsorship of a religious exercise" (Emmerich/Adams 12-78). Here we have an example, or exception, mind you, affirmed by the high courts. They do so by defending the historical context of the motto "In God We Trust" and also addressing the fact that it is not a nationally imposed belief, nor does it have the same intent anymore as when it was originally invented in the late 19th century. Clearly in both cases represented here today, there is no such progress, or preference of a state, or city-sanctioned religion. If courts can rationalize support for this type of motto, or symbolic expression, then they must also be consistent in transferring that same logic to today's cases. In Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corporation, the court concluded: "It does not seem reasonable to require the removal of a passive monument, without any compulsion, because its accepted precepts, as the foundation of the law, reflect the religious nature of an era ancient. The healthy neutrality guaranteed by the establishment and free exercise clauses does not impose the obliteration of all our religious traditions... we cannot say that the monument, as it is, is more than a representation of a monument historically important with both secular and sectarian effects" (Emmerich/Adams 12-77). The court clearly decided that the story involved here made it clear that this is an exception to violations of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause. The court further goes on to say that religious clauses do not "enforce the obliteration" of religious tradition. My attention must now shift to the individual stories of each city in question here today. Zion, clearly founded on religious principles and values, and in no way puts those principles and values ​​into practice. The city uses the symbols and logos in question simply to honor history. They do not impose or support a citywide religion, nor do they claim adherence to a national denomination. On the other hand, Rolling Meadows, which was not founded on defined religious or sectarian principles and values, displays the city emblem and logo on which there is a Latin cross. The seal and logo were not derived from ministers of any religious sect, nor were they created by anyone with a religious or political effect in mind. These articles were the work of an eighth grade student at a local middle school. I am absolutely convinced that it is safe to operate under the assumption that this eighth grader was not working for any particular political or religious group at the time, but was simply describing what she saw happening in her city and sketching out what was in her opinion, the best representation, of the city of Rolling Meadows. Analyze this case with the full scope of the religious clauses and precedents presented therein; we should also look impartially at the stories of these two beautiful cities. Without doing so, we are narrowing and completely restricting the scope of the "tests" used by the courts and judicial officials of this great country of ours. When we leave out stories we limit our options and in doing so we leave out a part of our past. Not considering the historical and cultural implications of each known city, the court not only workednarrowly, but also inconsistently. It appears that the court overturned the maintenance of these symbols without even considering the historical facts presented in each case. In the City of Zion, the "unconstitutional" arguments presented before the court were well established long before the three attacks on the lemon test prong. Zion is a city, as stated before, that was founded with religious purposes and assumptions in mind. The heritage of this great city has been completely neglected and expelled from the entire case. The facts are, Zion was founded out of the pursuit, if not the desire, to establish a religious and faith-oriented city. Does this mean that the city itself is promoting or advancing one sect over another? It seems that's not true. The goals of the city were to promote spirituality in the city itself. It is unclear whether at any given time it has been made clear by a city council member or mayor that the city is completely backwards and supports one sect over another. It is an impartial attempt to "promote a general spirit of peace, warmth, good brotherhood...". as cited by dissenting Justice Richardson in Fox v. City of Los Angeles. In Rolling Meadows, there is clearly no sectarian progress or support. The city did not support or promote one sect over another. This is a simple case where a school student was asked to draw what he thought of when he thought of Rolling Meadows. He did just that. His intent was pure and devoid of any religious connotation. If we were to objectively look at Lemon's test in each of these cases we should interpret them as such: First of all, the cities in question have a perfectly secular purpose for supporting the use of these symbols and seals. Both cities, based on historical evidence, or historical means, show that the use of these symbols is clearly non-sectarian. In both cases, the cities argue that the symbols are being maintained simply to honor each city's unique history. Secondly, if we were to consider the second prong of the Lemon test, "promoting or inhibiting one religion over another", we should clearly see that the intent is not there in either situation. In the case of Rolling Meadows, the eighth grader responsible for creating the seal itself had no intention of singling out one religion over another. He simply drew what he saw in his hometown. In the case of Zion, the city council has openly stated that it would like to uphold its city's symbols and seals as a kind of patriotic recognition of the city. The city council claims, "no matter what the original City Council's purpose was in adopting the seal in 1902, the current City Council has voted to retain the seal solely for historical purposes." Here, as a valid testimony to the intentions of the City Council, we see there is no promotion of any religious sect, only history and patriotic pride. Third and finally, if we were to look at the third and final prong of the Lemon test, which is "excessive government involvement", we would have to see what exactly the government of both cities would have to do to maintain these symbols and seals. When we look at City Council involvement in each city, we see that Councils should pay to have seals and emblems made for law enforcement and fire safety teams, uniforms and vehicles, not to mention paying to have print letterhead and other such documents containing these symbols. With that in mind, shouldn't municipalities still be paying for that type of material? Wouldn't it be their duty to purchase that type of material? Obviously it is.