Centuries Later, Religious Freedom Debate Rages On

, New York Law Journal


More than 200 years after Thomas Jefferson and James Madison launched the freedom of religion v. freedom from religion debate, Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing prayer at government meetings suggests the Jeffersonians and Madisonians remain in a dead heat, observers said.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • John Hancock

    It‘s not ceremonial to me when millions of members of my religion have been forced over the years to convert to your religion or be put to death ... topped off with 6 million of my ancestors meeting that fate ... and you can‘t understand why I shouldn‘t have to sit at a governmental meeting and listen to the government praying to Jesus Christ, in a country that was founded, in part, for purposes of religious freedom. I don‘t get how people don‘t understand this.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202654076319

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.