[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-321256-105":59,"doc-detail-321256-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","the-secular-humanist-bulletin-supreme-court-upholds-religious-freedomso-far","The Secular Humanist Bulletin - Supreme Court Upholds Religious Freedom,So Far","","A bulletin-style analysis critiques shifting U.S. Supreme Court rulings on church–state separation from the early 1980s through the mid-1980s. It summarizes decisions affecting tuition tax deductions, prayer in legislative sessions, and religious symbols in public spaces, then contrasts later limits on school prayer, parochial instruction funding, and Sabbath-related worker exemptions. It also covers Right-wing responses and a parallel discussion of litigation over “tax the churches” exemptions and IRS reclassification of Lutheran Social Services, emphasizing civil liberty and concerns about government judging religious content.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":45,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/religion-spirituality/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-secular-humanist-bulletin-supreme-court-upholds-religious-freedomso-far/321256/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-secular-humanist-bulletin-supreme-court-upholds-religious-freedomso-far/321256.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Asher","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-14","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":24},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Which Supreme Court church-state cases from 1983-84 are summarized, and what did they address?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The text summarizes Mueller v. Allen (tuition tax deductions), March v. Chambers (challenged prayers at legislative openings), and Lynch v. Donnelly (a creche in Rhode Island). It notes that in all three, the “wall” was “chipped away at.”","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What does the bulletin say happened during the 1984-85 term regarding public school prayer and related practices?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It claims the Court appeared to reverse course by outlawing officially sponsored silent prayer in public schools, restricting teachers paid with public funds from conducting classes in parochial schools, and limiting workers’ rights to take off their Sabbath each week.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What is the “tax the churches” discussion in “Render Unto Caesar” focused on?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It focuses on a lawsuit theory that an aggressively researched challenge could remove religion from the public sphere, and it highlights an Eighth Circuit decision involving IRS efforts to reclassify Lutheran Social Services of Minnesota from religious to charitable status.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},321256,1790461399,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":44,"category_name":45,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":24,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},687197207639,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","# Supreme Court Upholds Religious Freedom,So Far\n\nIs the Supreme Court rebuilding the wallseparating church and state that it was dis-mantling not that long ago?Has it discernedthe intent of the Religious Right and finallystood up to the Reagan administration'spressure tactics?Only time will tell.  \nIn its 1983-84 session,the SupremeCourt ruled on three church/state cases:Mueller v.Allen,which dealt with taxdeductions in Minnesota for tuition for pri-vate schools;March v.Chambers,in whichprayers opening sessions of Nebraska's legis-Jature were challenged;and Lynch v.Don-nelly,which concerned a creche in RhodeIsland.In all three cases,the“wall”waschipped away at.  \nDuring the 1984-85 term,however,theCourt seems to have reversed course by out-lawing officially sponsored silent prayer inpublic schools,banning teachers paid withpublic funds from conducting classes inparochial schools,and limiting workers°rights to take off their Sabbath each week.The voices from the Right were not timid indecrying this session's decisions.  \nJerry Falwell,who is always asked forhis expert opinion by the press,said thatthe Supreme Court allows herpes and Marx-ism in the classroom but noe prayer.TimLaHaye of the American Coalition for Tra-ditional Values indicated that“Polard hasmore religious values in public schools thanwe do.\"William F.Buckley,George Will,James J.Kilpatrick,and Phyllis Schlaflyblasted the High Court in their syndicatedcolumns.  \nFrom the \"other side,\"Alan Dershowitzbrought to light some interesting points con-cerning the lower court ruling that broughtthe school-prayer case to the Supreme Court.He said that Federal District Court JudgeW.Brevard Hand forced the Court's hand  \n# The Secular Humanist Bulletin\n\nby allowing the Alabama Law to stand whileacknowledging that it encouraged prayer.Furthermore,Hand pontificated that Ala-bama,and any other state,has the right toestablish a state religion,just as it maychoose a state bird or flower.There's more!Hand would also allow the states to pay forthe churches and ministers of the favoredreligion,thus discriminating against mem-bers of any other religion.In reversingHand's decision,the High Court called hisviews“remarkable”一as Dershowitz put it,“a judicial euphemism for ridiculous.”Mighthave Judge Hand's absurdities opened theSupreme Court's eyes to the dangers JamesMadison saw when he wrote his Memorialand Remonstrance Against ReligiousAssessments?  \nBut how strong is the Court's defenseof the“wall?In a lesser known decision,the Supreme Court agreed (5-4)to let theReagan administration take part in argu-ments next fall on ihe constitutionality ofallowing public high school .udents inWilliamsport,Pa.,to meet during schoolhours for prayer and religious worship.Thisruling may be significant if one considersthe administration's reaction to the Court'srecent decisions regarding religion.AttorneyGeneral Edwin Meese said that the Court'saffirmation of church-state separation“would have struck the founding generationas somewhat bizarre.\"He did not refer tothe writings of the Founding Fathers,butapparently was able to read the minds ofthe \"founding generation.\"Echoing JudgeHand's states'rights position,Meese alsosaid,\"The Bill of Rights,debated,created,and ratified,was designed to apply only tothe national government.\"(And we thoughtthe Civil War was over!)Education Secre-(Continued on p.4)  \n\n| The Secuar Нитапм ВиПенпй деаЪуТот ГгвсхукапаТот Пупачрретєто ГкееЦмоимУтвтеЪуШе СошпсПГог ЮєтостПс алй Бесшаг Нитапзт  \u003Cbr>(CODESH,Ine.),a non-profit corporation,3151 Bailey Avenue,Buffalo,NY 14215.Phone(716)834-2921.Paul Kurtz,editor,and Andre Szalanski,managing editor.FREE  \u003Cbr>Тмошму. Мапшспри, eшегь,aпd edtогaIinашпезмоиЮ Ьеваагешеаюо ТПе ЕАйог Зесмюг НитллМм ВмПенп Вох Э, СепгаРвгк Бишоа, ВиПаю МУ М215 АП  \u003Cbr>тлпшспри впоиЮ Ье вссотралюа ЬуГмо соркз алАа млтред хеК-дагєшеа епувюре   |\n| --- |\n\nRender Unto Caesar  \nFreethought radicals have long maintainedthat a well-funded,exhaustively researched","cbCaitfvHzT9tR3r","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitfvHzT9tR3r","pdf",1489874,"English","# Supreme Court Upholds Religious Freedom,So Far\n## Church-state cases and shifting court positions\n## Right-wing reactions and legal commentary\n# Render Unto Caesar\n## IRS reclassification and religious tax exemptions\n## Civil liberty and the risks of government judgment","[{\"question\":\"Which Supreme Court church-state cases from 1983-84 are summarized, and what did they address?\",\"answer\":\"The text summarizes Mueller v. Allen (tuition tax deductions), March v. Chambers (challenged prayers at legislative openings), and Lynch v. Donnelly (a creche in Rhode Island). It notes that in all three, the “wall” was “chipped away at.”\"},{\"question\":\"What does the bulletin say happened during the 1984-85 term regarding public school prayer and related practices?\",\"answer\":\"It claims the Court appeared to reverse course by outlawing officially sponsored silent prayer in public schools, restricting teachers paid with public funds from conducting classes in parochial schools, and limiting workers’ rights to take off their Sabbath each week.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the “tax the churches” discussion in “Render Unto Caesar” focused on?\",\"answer\":\"It focuses on a lawsuit theory that an aggressively researched challenge could remove religion from the public sphere, and it highlights an Eighth Circuit decision involving IRS efforts to reclassify Lutheran Social Services of Minnesota from religious to charitable status.\"}]","The Secular Humanist Bulletin - Supreme Court Upholds Religious Freedom,So Far | PDF",1789958813,13]