The Westboro Baptist Church held and carried signs that read “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “God Hates You”, along with others, and did so in as manner that was sought to be very legal. The Westboro Baptist Church had been known for being a very extreme hate group in the past was displaying how they sought to get their message across. Phelps and his radical hate group from the Westboro Baptist Church believe that any misfortune that befalls American soldiers is retribution for the country not adhering to their doctrine, in which condemns gays, Catholics, and Jews, and many others. Seeing that Mathew Synder was raised in the Catholic Church, this brought about more reasoning for their picketing. When the case was initially brought to court Snyder was awarded $11 million dollars then it turned into $5 million dollars when the case returned to court then eventually the Supreme court ruled in favor of Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church and overturning any money owed in the lawsuit.
Phelps stems from a 2006 funeral in Westminster, MD where protests by the Phelps' Topeka, Kansas Westboro Baptist Church during the funeral of Marine Matthew Snyder turned it into a circus atmosphere. According to Albert Snyder, it took the last good memory of his son from his family. The Phelps family church previously protested the funerals of 200 soldiers. Allegedly, they protested the Snyder funeral because the family is Catholic. The church claims US war deaths are God's punishment for abortion and gay rights.
As previously discussed, the lawsuit was filed because several members of the Phelps family and members of the Westboro Baptist Church stood in protest outside the funeral of an Iraq war soldier, a United States Marine Lance Corporal named Matthew Snyder, holding signs with inflammatory phrases on them. The father of the soldier, Albert Snyder, filed a lawsuit against the Phelps’ saying that the picketing caused an “intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of privacy, and conspiracy” (Cohen, 2012). The constitutional question is if the protection of free speech should be limited when the ideas expressed can be tied to severe emotional distress. The theory behind Snyder’s argument is based on limiting free speech when it causes “intentional emotional distress, and violations of individual privacy”. The Westboro Baptist Church, more specifically, the Phelps’ Family argument is based on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
Treasury gave $500 billion to keep financial markets from being rocked by bad judgment of bankers and politicians. Aroused the suspicion of pro-lifers by appointing as secretary of Health and Human Services Dr. Louis Sullivan who had been a pro-choice defender; refused to support UN programs that funded compulsory abortion abroad and praised the Supreme Court decision Webster v. Reproductive Health Services of Missouri, weakened the Roe v. Wade decision; but wouldn’t sign the bills limiting federal funding for abortion service. Bush sought to mend fences in the African-American community by appointing General Colin Powell to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Emperor Nero of Rome and the persecution of Christians A generation after the death of Christ, Christianity had reached Rome in the form of an obscure offshoot of Judaism popular among the city's poor and destitute. Members of this religious sect spoke of the coming of a new kingdom and a new king. These views provoked suspicion among the Jewish authorities who rejected the group and fear among the Roman authorities who perceived these sentiments as a threat to the Empire. In the summer of 64, Rome suffered a terrible fire that burned for six days and seven nights consuming almost three quarters of the city. The people accused the Emperor Nero for the devastation claiming he set the fire for his own amusement.
The Supreme Court ruled in the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that school officials violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments when they punished students and their parents for the students’ refusal to salute to the American flag. During the 1940s, the United States Supreme Court discussed two cases in which the majority disputed with the rights of individuals. In the first case, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, the court ruled that all students had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance while saluting the flag in the classroom. However, the Supreme Court faced the same issue three years later in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and was against a state school order that public school students must participate in a patriotic ceremony. The issues of the Barnette case stemmed from the decision of the Minersville School District v. Gobitis case.
Paul Mattick explains in this article the development of arts in the nineteenth century and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) role. Mattick begins his article referring to the NEA, “On June 25, 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the so-called NEA Four... The high court’s decision was for all practical purposes the last act of a drama that had begun in 1989 with Congressional agitation against the NEA in response to complaints orchestrated by right-wing Christian outfits, notably Rev. Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association, against supposedly blasphemous and indecent artworks by Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe which had been exhibited in NEA-supported institutions.” (Mattick, 521) “How has this happened, and what does it tell us about the place of arts in society at the present time?” (Mattick, 521) With this question Mattick begins to analyze the nineteenth century of arts. Mattick enforced the relation of art with economic and politics, essential to the survival of art.
Religious Right author David Barton, perhaps the most outspoken of the “wall of separation” critics, devoted an entire book, The Myth of Separation, to proving his claim that church-state separation is “absurd” and was a principle completely foreign to the Founding Fathers. He states: “In Jefferson’s full letter, he said separation of church and state means the government will not run the church, but we will use Christian principles with government.” More recently, two researchers have published books that criticize the almost infamous status the metaphor has achieved, especially before the U. S. Supreme Court. Daniel Dreisbach, who wrote, Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State, is critical of the courts for making the metaphor a practical rule of constitutional law. Dreisbach’s basic argument is that the metaphor fails to distinguish between the conception of “separation” and “non-establishment.” Dreisbach is correct in saying that metaphors can be overstated, misused, and made poor substitutes for legal
Later on as the pax romana began to crumble the romans executed Christians for refusing to worship roman gods. They were crucified, burned, or killed by wild animals. Despite persecution Christianity became a powerful belief. By the third century a.d., there were millions of Christians in the Roman
Others feel that Engel v. Vitale should be overturned on the basis of the unconstitutionality of the “Separation of Church and State.” Although it is now commonplace in court rulings, in 1878, the Supreme Court cited the letter by Thomas Jefferson where the phrase “Separation of Church and State” is found and stated that it meant Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere religious opinions (Reynolds v. United States). It wasn’t until 1947 that the Supreme Court cited the 8 words “a wall of separation between Church and State” without the context of the letter and sought a separation of basic religious principles from public life (Everson v. Board of Education). Whether for or against religious activities in the public school system, demonstration is readily available of the drastic change in moral life of the American