For OConnor the Clause prohibits official governmental support or endorsement

For oconnor the clause prohibits official

This preview shows page 119 - 122 out of 138 pages.

For O’Connor, the Clause prohibits official governmental support or endorsement 80 487 U.S. 589 (1988); This case involved “Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), which awarded grants for teaching and counseling teenagers about sexual abstinence and encouraged grantees to make subgrants to religious organizations and other non- profit community groups, in order to expand the range of providers for the counseling and educational services” (Lupu & Tuttle, 2005, p.5). 81 See e.g., Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997), and Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 810 (2000). 82 “Endorsement [of religion] sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. Disapproval sends the opposite message.” Lynch v. Donnelly , 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring); As cited in Lupu & Tuttle (2005, p. 10).
Image of page 119
P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s a n d J u r o r B i a s e s | 120 of indoctrination into a religious faith, and does not take issue with the idea of secularism or separation, like Rehnquist. 83 Both of these Justices view the purpose of the Religion Clauses differently and as such interpret the wording in contrasting manners. As such, it is easy to see that even today Supreme Court Justices differ on their readings of the Establishment Clause and “ Lemon test,” resulting in inconsistent verdicts and also compromising an appropriate measure of the separation between church and state (whatever that may be). The three court cases of Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Engel v. Vitale (1962), and Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), as well as the differing opinions of Justices Rehnquist and O’Connor demonstrate our country’s battle in regulating the role of religion in legal matters. This concept is important to note when considering the findings of this study. Though it was found that religion impacts juror decisions, the issue of removing religious symbols from the courtroom is fraught with controversy. While it may be argued that the removal of religion will increase rational thought and reliance on evidence and the judge’s instructions to come to a verdict, this seems unlikely to occur given that the United States has shown its inability to separate itself from religion throughout history, and continues to do so today. This fact serves to emphasize the importance of integrating perspective taking instructions to counter the effects of religious biases. Faith-Based Rehabilitation 83 Mitchell v. Helms (2000), 530 U.S. 793, 844-45 (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment), as cited in Lupu & Tuttle, 2005, p. 16.
Image of page 120
P e r s p e c t i v e T a k i n g , R e l i g i o u s S y m b o l s a n d J u r o r B i a s e s | 121 In recent years, government leniency concerning “charitable choice” 84 provisions towards religious groups as well as prison population increases has created an emergence of government funded faith-based rehabilitation prison programs in the United States.
Image of page 121
Image of page 122

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 138 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Miller & Bornstein

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes