ABSTRACT

This essay examines the case American Legion v. American Humanist Association in which the Supreme Court decided (in a 7–2 decision) that a monument in Bladensburg, Maryland, known as the Peace Cross, does not represent governmental promotion of religion, and therefore is not in violation of the Establishment Clause. The origins of the First Amendment are discussed followed by a discussion of significant Supreme Court precedents, providing a meaningful framework for an understanding of the First Amendment issues at stake in this case. With that background, the major tenets of the Peace Cross case are examined, including majority/concurring and dissenting opinions. Finally, a perspective of this case is situated as contradistinctive to another current artifact, in which the latter engenders an untenable, harmful and violative relationship between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

摘要

本文研究了美国退伍军人诉美国人文主义者协会一案，在该案中，最高法院（以7比2的裁决）裁定马里兰州布拉德斯堡的一个纪念碑，即和平十字勋章，不代表政府对宗教的促进，因此不违反《营业条款》。讨论了《第一修正案》的由来，随后讨论了最高法院的重要判例，为理解此案中的《第一修正案》提供了有意义的框架。在这种背景下，审查了“和平十字架”案的主要原则，包括多数/同意和反对意见。最终，这种情况的观点与另一种当前的文物形成了鲜明的对比，在后者中，后者造成了站不住脚的，