id
stringlengths 24
24
| title
stringclasses 442
values | context
stringlengths 151
3.71k
| question
stringlengths 12
270
| answers
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
5ad14079645df0001a2d13c1
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's opponents said his position was the destruction and the governmental rejection of Christianity, but this was a caricature. In setting up the University of Virginia, Jefferson encouraged all the separate sects to have preachers of their own, though there was a constitutional ban on the State supporting a Professorship of Divinity, arising from his own Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Some have argued that this arrangement was "fully compatible with Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state;" however, others point to Jefferson's support for a scheme in which students at the University would attend religious worship each morning as evidence that his views were not consistent with strict separation. Still other scholars, such as Mark David Hall, attempt to sidestep the whole issue by arguing that American jurisprudence focuses too narrowly on this one Jeffersonian letter while failing to account for other relevant history
|
What did Jefferson discourage the separate sects at the University of Virginia to have of their own?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14079645df0001a2d13c2
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's opponents said his position was the destruction and the governmental rejection of Christianity, but this was a caricature. In setting up the University of Virginia, Jefferson encouraged all the separate sects to have preachers of their own, though there was a constitutional ban on the State supporting a Professorship of Divinity, arising from his own Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Some have argued that this arrangement was "fully compatible with Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state;" however, others point to Jefferson's support for a scheme in which students at the University would attend religious worship each morning as evidence that his views were not consistent with strict separation. Still other scholars, such as Mark David Hall, attempt to sidestep the whole issue by arguing that American jurisprudence focuses too narrowly on this one Jeffersonian letter while failing to account for other relevant history
|
How was the state allowed to support a Professorship of Divinity?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14079645df0001a2d13c3
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's opponents said his position was the destruction and the governmental rejection of Christianity, but this was a caricature. In setting up the University of Virginia, Jefferson encouraged all the separate sects to have preachers of their own, though there was a constitutional ban on the State supporting a Professorship of Divinity, arising from his own Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Some have argued that this arrangement was "fully compatible with Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state;" however, others point to Jefferson's support for a scheme in which students at the University would attend religious worship each morning as evidence that his views were not consistent with strict separation. Still other scholars, such as Mark David Hall, attempt to sidestep the whole issue by arguing that American jurisprudence focuses too narrowly on this one Jeffersonian letter while failing to account for other relevant history
|
What scheme did Jefferson reject when it came to University students?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14079645df0001a2d13c4
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's opponents said his position was the destruction and the governmental rejection of Christianity, but this was a caricature. In setting up the University of Virginia, Jefferson encouraged all the separate sects to have preachers of their own, though there was a constitutional ban on the State supporting a Professorship of Divinity, arising from his own Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Some have argued that this arrangement was "fully compatible with Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state;" however, others point to Jefferson's support for a scheme in which students at the University would attend religious worship each morning as evidence that his views were not consistent with strict separation. Still other scholars, such as Mark David Hall, attempt to sidestep the whole issue by arguing that American jurisprudence focuses too narrowly on this one Jeffersonian letter while failing to account for other relevant history
|
What does Mark David Hall think people don't focus on enough?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5731b8f8e17f3d1400422325
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.
|
When did Jefferson's letter enter American jurisprudence?
|
{
"answer_start": [
57
],
"text": [
"1878"
]
}
|
5731b8f8e17f3d1400422326
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.
|
What was the case that used Jefferson's letter?
|
{
"answer_start": [
83
],
"text": [
"Reynolds v. U.S."
]
}
|
5731b8f8e17f3d1400422327
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.
|
What was the topic of Reynolds v. U.S.?
|
{
"answer_start": [
62
],
"text": [
"Mormon polygamy"
]
}
|
5731b8f8e17f3d1400422328
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.
|
What was the court seeking, in using Jefferson's letter?
|
{
"answer_start": [
159
],
"text": [
"legal definition for the word religion"
]
}
|
5731b8f8e17f3d1400422329
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.
|
What did the court rule outlawing polygamy was?
|
{
"answer_start": [
553
],
"text": [
"constitutional"
]
}
|
5ad140c8645df0001a2d13d2
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.
|
When did Jefferson's letter not enter American jurisprudence?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad140c8645df0001a2d13d3
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.
|
What was the case that denied Jefferson's letter?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad140c8645df0001a2d13d4
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.
|
What was the court seeking, in not using Jefferson's letter?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad140c8645df0001a2d13d5
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.
|
What was the topic of Meynolds v. U.S.?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad140c8645df0001a2d13d6
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.
|
What did the court rule not outlawing polygamy was?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5731b9d9b9d445190005e4c5
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson and Madison's approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that:
|
What approach was not the only one taken in the 18th century?
|
{
"answer_start": [
0
],
"text": [
"Jefferson and Madison's"
]
}
|
5731b9d9b9d445190005e4c6
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson and Madison's approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that:
|
What did Jefferson draft his Statute of Religious Freedom in opposition to?
|
{
"answer_start": [
157
],
"text": [
"a bill"
]
}
|
5731b9d9b9d445190005e4c7
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson and Madison's approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that:
|
Who was the chief supporter of the bill that got Jefferson motivated to draft his Statute?
|
{
"answer_start": [
186
],
"text": [
"Patrick Henry"
]
}
|
5731b9d9b9d445190005e4c8
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson and Madison's approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that:
|
What did Patrick Henry want to require Virginians to pay taxes to support?
|
{
"answer_start": [
306
],
"text": [
"some denomination"
]
}
|
5731b9d9b9d445190005e4c9
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson and Madison's approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that:
|
What did the Constitution of Massachusetts express no one would be restrained from doing?
|
{
"answer_start": [
514
],
"text": [
"worshipping God"
]
}
|
5ad14105645df0001a2d13e4
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson and Madison's approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that:
|
What approach was the only one taken in the 18th century?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14105645df0001a2d13e5
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson and Madison's approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that:
|
What did Jefferson draft his Statute of Religious Freedom in support of?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14105645df0001a2d13e6
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson and Madison's approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that:
|
Who was the chief opposition of the bill that got Jefferson motivated to draft his Statute?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14105645df0001a2d13e7
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson and Madison's approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that:
|
What did Patrick Henry not want to require Virginians to pay taxes to support?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14105645df0001a2d13e8
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson and Madison's approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that:
|
What did the Constitution of Massachusetts express everyone would be restrained from doing?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5731ba670fdd8d15006c64ab
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Duke of York had required that every community in his new lands of New York and New Jersey support some church, but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian, than Anglican. Some chose to support more than one church. He also ordained that the tax-payers were free, having paid his local tax, to choose their own church. The terms for the surrender of New Amsterdam had provided that the Dutch would have liberty of conscience, and the Duke, as an openly divine-right Catholic, was no friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698, though Anglicanism was more popular in New York.
|
What did the Duke of York require every community in his lands to support?
|
{
"answer_start": [
103
],
"text": [
"some church"
]
}
|
5731ba670fdd8d15006c64ac
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Duke of York had required that every community in his new lands of New York and New Jersey support some church, but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian, than Anglican. Some chose to support more than one church. He also ordained that the tax-payers were free, having paid his local tax, to choose their own church. The terms for the surrender of New Amsterdam had provided that the Dutch would have liberty of conscience, and the Duke, as an openly divine-right Catholic, was no friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698, though Anglicanism was more popular in New York.
|
Instead of Anglican, what were the churches most often supported in New York and New Jersey?
|
{
"answer_start": [
140
],
"text": [
"Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian"
]
}
|
5731ba670fdd8d15006c64ad
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Duke of York had required that every community in his new lands of New York and New Jersey support some church, but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian, than Anglican. Some chose to support more than one church. He also ordained that the tax-payers were free, having paid his local tax, to choose their own church. The terms for the surrender of New Amsterdam had provided that the Dutch would have liberty of conscience, and the Duke, as an openly divine-right Catholic, was no friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698, though Anglicanism was more popular in New York.
|
What were taxpayers free to do after they paid the Duke of York his local tax?
|
{
"answer_start": [
314
],
"text": [
"to choose their own church"
]
}
|
5731ba670fdd8d15006c64ae
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Duke of York had required that every community in his new lands of New York and New Jersey support some church, but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian, than Anglican. Some chose to support more than one church. He also ordained that the tax-payers were free, having paid his local tax, to choose their own church. The terms for the surrender of New Amsterdam had provided that the Dutch would have liberty of conscience, and the Duke, as an openly divine-right Catholic, was no friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698, though Anglicanism was more popular in New York.
|
Why was the Duke not a friend of Anglicanism?
|
{
"answer_start": [
469
],
"text": [
"openly divine-right Catholic,"
]
}
|
5731ba670fdd8d15006c64af
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Duke of York had required that every community in his new lands of New York and New Jersey support some church, but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian, than Anglican. Some chose to support more than one church. He also ordained that the tax-payers were free, having paid his local tax, to choose their own church. The terms for the surrender of New Amsterdam had provided that the Dutch would have liberty of conscience, and the Duke, as an openly divine-right Catholic, was no friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698, though Anglicanism was more popular in New York.
|
When did the first Anglican minister arrive in New Jersey?
|
{
"answer_start": [
582
],
"text": [
"1698"
]
}
|
5ad14149645df0001a2d13ee
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Duke of York had required that every community in his new lands of New York and New Jersey support some church, but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian, than Anglican. Some chose to support more than one church. He also ordained that the tax-payers were free, having paid his local tax, to choose their own church. The terms for the surrender of New Amsterdam had provided that the Dutch would have liberty of conscience, and the Duke, as an openly divine-right Catholic, was no friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698, though Anglicanism was more popular in New York.
|
What did the Duke of York never require every community in his lands to support?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14149645df0001a2d13ef
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Duke of York had required that every community in his new lands of New York and New Jersey support some church, but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian, than Anglican. Some chose to support more than one church. He also ordained that the tax-payers were free, having paid his local tax, to choose their own church. The terms for the surrender of New Amsterdam had provided that the Dutch would have liberty of conscience, and the Duke, as an openly divine-right Catholic, was no friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698, though Anglicanism was more popular in New York.
|
Instead of Anglican, what were the churches never supported in New York and New Jersey?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14149645df0001a2d13f0
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Duke of York had required that every community in his new lands of New York and New Jersey support some church, but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian, than Anglican. Some chose to support more than one church. He also ordained that the tax-payers were free, having paid his local tax, to choose their own church. The terms for the surrender of New Amsterdam had provided that the Dutch would have liberty of conscience, and the Duke, as an openly divine-right Catholic, was no friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698, though Anglicanism was more popular in New York.
|
What were taxpayers not free to do after they paid the Duke of York his local tax?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14149645df0001a2d13f1
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Duke of York had required that every community in his new lands of New York and New Jersey support some church, but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian, than Anglican. Some chose to support more than one church. He also ordained that the tax-payers were free, having paid his local tax, to choose their own church. The terms for the surrender of New Amsterdam had provided that the Dutch would have liberty of conscience, and the Duke, as an openly divine-right Catholic, was no friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698, though Anglicanism was more popular in New York.
|
Why was the Duke a friend of Anglicanism?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14149645df0001a2d13f2
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Duke of York had required that every community in his new lands of New York and New Jersey support some church, but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian, than Anglican. Some chose to support more than one church. He also ordained that the tax-payers were free, having paid his local tax, to choose their own church. The terms for the surrender of New Amsterdam had provided that the Dutch would have liberty of conscience, and the Duke, as an openly divine-right Catholic, was no friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698, though Anglicanism was more popular in New York.
|
When did the first Anglican minister leave New Jersey?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5731bb10b9d445190005e4cf
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scottish Catholic peers. The Province of West Jersey had declared, in 1681, that there should be no religious test for office. An oath had also been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution. That law was replaced by 1799.
|
What did the original charter of the Province of East Jersey restrict membership in its Assembly to?
|
{
"answer_start": [
97
],
"text": [
"Christians"
]
}
|
5731bb10b9d445190005e4d0
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scottish Catholic peers. The Province of West Jersey had declared, in 1681, that there should be no religious test for office. An oath had also been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution. That law was replaced by 1799.
|
What was the Duke of York's relationship to his religion described as being?
|
{
"answer_start": [
130
],
"text": [
"fervently Catholic"
]
}
|
5731bb10b9d445190005e4d1
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scottish Catholic peers. The Province of West Jersey had declared, in 1681, that there should be no religious test for office. An oath had also been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution. That law was replaced by 1799.
|
What religious sect were the proprietors of Perth Amboy?
|
{
"answer_start": [
202
],
"text": [
"Scottish Catholic"
]
}
|
5731bb10b9d445190005e4d2
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scottish Catholic peers. The Province of West Jersey had declared, in 1681, that there should be no religious test for office. An oath had also been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution. That law was replaced by 1799.
|
What did the Province of West Jersey specify there would not be for those running for an office, in 1681?
|
{
"answer_start": [
302
],
"text": [
"religious test"
]
}
|
5731bb10b9d445190005e4d3
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scottish Catholic peers. The Province of West Jersey had declared, in 1681, that there should be no religious test for office. An oath had also been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution. That law was replaced by 1799.
|
When was an oath requiring militia to abjure the pretensions of the pope replaced?
|
{
"answer_start": [
548
],
"text": [
"1799"
]
}
|
5ad141b5645df0001a2d13f8
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scottish Catholic peers. The Province of West Jersey had declared, in 1681, that there should be no religious test for office. An oath had also been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution. That law was replaced by 1799.
|
What didn't the original charter of the Province of East Jersey restrict membership in its Assembly to?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad141b5645df0001a2d13f9
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scottish Catholic peers. The Province of West Jersey had declared, in 1681, that there should be no religious test for office. An oath had also been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution. That law was replaced by 1799.
|
What was the Duke of York's relationship to his religion described as not being?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad141b5645df0001a2d13fa
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scottish Catholic peers. The Province of West Jersey had declared, in 1681, that there should be no religious test for office. An oath had also been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution. That law was replaced by 1799.
|
What non-religious sect were the proprietors of Perth Amboy?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad141b5645df0001a2d13fb
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scottish Catholic peers. The Province of West Jersey had declared, in 1681, that there should be no religious test for office. An oath had also been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution. That law was replaced by 1799.
|
What did the Province of West Jersey specify there would be for those running for an office, in 1681?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad141b5645df0001a2d13fc
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scottish Catholic peers. The Province of West Jersey had declared, in 1681, that there should be no religious test for office. An oath had also been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution. That law was replaced by 1799.
|
When was an oath requiring militia to abjure the pretensions of the pope not replaced?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5731bbb5e99e3014001e622c
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.
|
What does the first amendment to the US Constitution state?
|
{
"answer_start": [
50
],
"text": [
"\"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof\""
]
}
|
5731bbb5e99e3014001e622d
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.
|
What is the first part of the First Amendment know as?
|
{
"answer_start": [
189
],
"text": [
"\"establishment clause\""
]
}
|
5731bbb5e99e3014001e622e
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.
|
What is the last part of the sentence of the First Amendment known as?
|
{
"answer_start": [
220
],
"text": [
"\"free exercise clause\""
]
}
|
5731bbb5e99e3014001e622f
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.
|
What do the two clauses of the First Amendment for the basis of?
|
{
"answer_start": [
284
],
"text": [
"the Supreme Court's interpretations of the \"separation of church and state\" doctrine."
]
}
|
5731bbb5e99e3014001e6230
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.
|
What are citizens of the United States free to embrace or reject as they choose?
|
{
"answer_start": [
677
],
"text": [
"a faith"
]
}
|
5ad141f4645df0001a2d140c
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.
|
What does the second amendment to the US Constitution state?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad141f4645df0001a2d140d
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.
|
What is the second part of the First Amendment know as?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad141f4645df0001a2d140e
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.
|
What is the first part of the sentence of the First Amendment known as?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad141f4645df0001a2d140f
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.
|
What do the four clauses of the First Amendment for the basis of?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad141f4645df0001a2d1410
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.
|
What are citizens of the United States not free to embrace or reject as they choose?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5731bcdc0fdd8d15006c64c3
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Some legal scholars, such as John Baker of LSU, theorize that Madison's initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a "national religion"—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general "religion" in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown. During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison's language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.
|
What is John Baker of LSU's profession?
|
{
"answer_start": [
5
],
"text": [
"legal scholars"
]
}
|
5731bcdc0fdd8d15006c64c4
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Some legal scholars, such as John Baker of LSU, theorize that Madison's initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a "national religion"—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general "religion" in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown. During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison's language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.
|
Why was a more general "religion" used in the language of the First Amendment?
|
{
"answer_start": [
264
],
"text": [
"to appease the Anti-Federalists"
]
}
|
5731bcdc0fdd8d15006c64c5
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Some legal scholars, such as John Baker of LSU, theorize that Madison's initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a "national religion"—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general "religion" in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown. During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison's language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.
|
Why was the word "national" a cause for alarm to both Federalists and Anti-Federalists?
|
{
"answer_start": [
394
],
"text": [
"because of the experience under the British crown"
]
}
|
5731bcdc0fdd8d15006c64c6
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Some legal scholars, such as John Baker of LSU, theorize that Madison's initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a "national religion"—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general "religion" in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown. During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison's language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.
|
Who took issue with Madison's language during the debate over the establishment clause?
|
{
"answer_start": [
499
],
"text": [
"Elbridge Gerry"
]
}
|
5731bcdc0fdd8d15006c64c7
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Some legal scholars, such as John Baker of LSU, theorize that Madison's initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a "national religion"—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general "religion" in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown. During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison's language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.
|
What was Elbridge Gerry's constituency?
|
{
"answer_start": [
517
],
"text": [
"Massachusetts"
]
}
|
5ad1423f645df0001a2d1420
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Some legal scholars, such as John Baker of LSU, theorize that Madison's initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a "national religion"—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general "religion" in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown. During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison's language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.
|
What is John Baker of LLU's profession?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad1423f645df0001a2d1421
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Some legal scholars, such as John Baker of LSU, theorize that Madison's initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a "national religion"—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general "religion" in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown. During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison's language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.
|
Why was a more general "religion" used in the language of the Second Amendment?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad1423f645df0001a2d1422
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Some legal scholars, such as John Baker of LSU, theorize that Madison's initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a "national religion"—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general "religion" in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown. During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison's language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.
|
Why was the word "national" a cause for alarm to neither Federalists and Anti-Federalists?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad1423f645df0001a2d1423
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Some legal scholars, such as John Baker of LSU, theorize that Madison's initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a "national religion"—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general "religion" in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown. During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison's language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.
|
Who didn't take issue with Madison's language during the debate over the establishment clause?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad1423f645df0001a2d1424
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Some legal scholars, such as John Baker of LSU, theorize that Madison's initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a "national religion"—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general "religion" in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown. During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison's language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.
|
What wasn't Elbridge Gerry's constituency?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5731bd5e0fdd8d15006c64cd
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which did not include establishing a national religion. Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop the clause from the first amendment.
|
Where was Representative Roger Sherman from?
|
{
"answer_start": [
38
],
"text": [
"Connecticut"
]
}
|
5731bd5e0fdd8d15006c64ce
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which did not include establishing a national religion. Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop the clause from the first amendment.
|
Why did Sherman believe the establishment clause was unnecessary?
|
{
"answer_start": [
108
],
"text": [
"Constitution only gave Congress stated powers"
]
}
|
5731bd5e0fdd8d15006c64cf
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which did not include establishing a national religion. Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop the clause from the first amendment.
|
What power was not granted to Congress by the Constitution?
|
{
"answer_start": [
177
],
"text": [
"establishing a national religion"
]
}
|
5731bd5e0fdd8d15006c64d0
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which did not include establishing a national religion. Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop the clause from the first amendment.
|
Where was Representative Thomas Tucker from?
|
{
"answer_start": [
258
],
"text": [
"South Carolina"
]
}
|
5731bd5e0fdd8d15006c64d1
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which did not include establishing a national religion. Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop the clause from the first amendment.
|
What was Tucker concerned the establishment clause could preempt?
|
{
"answer_start": [
354
],
"text": [
"religious clauses in the state constitutions"
]
}
|
5ad142a4645df0001a2d142a
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which did not include establishing a national religion. Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop the clause from the first amendment.
|
Where was Representative Roger Merman from?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad142a4645df0001a2d142b
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which did not include establishing a national religion. Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop the clause from the first amendment.
|
Why did Sherman believe the establishment clause was necessary?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad142a4645df0001a2d142c
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which did not include establishing a national religion. Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop the clause from the first amendment.
|
What power was granted to Congress by the Constitution?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad142a4645df0001a2d142d
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which did not include establishing a national religion. Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop the clause from the first amendment.
|
Where was Representative Thomas Pucker from?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad142a4645df0001a2d142e
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which did not include establishing a national religion. Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop the clause from the first amendment.
|
What was Tucker concerned the establishment clause could not preempt?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5731bde8b9d445190005e4f7
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.
|
When was the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution created?
|
{
"answer_start": [
89
],
"text": [
"post-Civil War"
]
}
|
5731bde8b9d445190005e4f8
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.
|
What was the intent of the 14th Amendment?
|
{
"answer_start": [
128
],
"text": [
"secure rights for former slaves"
]
}
|
5731bde8b9d445190005e4f9
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.
|
What clauses does the 14th Amendment include?
|
{
"answer_start": [
177
],
"text": [
"due process and equal protection clauses"
]
}
|
5731bde8b9d445190005e4fa
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.
|
What does the 14th Amendment also introduce the concept of?
|
{
"answer_start": [
272
],
"text": [
"incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states"
]
}
|
5731bde8b9d445190005e4fb
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.
|
What has the doctrine of incorporation been used to ensure?
|
{
"answer_start": [
506
],
"text": [
"application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states"
]
}
|
5ad142f7645df0001a2d1434
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.
|
When was the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution created?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad142f7645df0001a2d1435
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.
|
What was the intent of the 13th Amendment?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad142f7645df0001a2d1436
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.
|
What clauses does the 13th Amendment include?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad142f7645df0001a2d1437
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.
|
What does the 13th Amendment also introduce the concept of?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad142f7645df0001a2d1438
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.
|
What has the doctrine of incorporation been used to not ensure?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5731bedce99e3014001e623e
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments. Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).
|
What landmark case has impacted all subsequent interpretations of the separation of church and state in regard to state governments?
|
{
"answer_start": [
86
],
"text": [
"Everson v. Board of Education"
]
}
|
5731bedce99e3014001e623f
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments. Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).
|
What did the Supreme Court uphold in Everson v. Board of Education?
|
{
"answer_start": [
256
],
"text": [
"state law"
]
}
|
5731bedce99e3014001e6240
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments. Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).
|
What did the Supreme Court hold the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to?
|
{
"answer_start": [
440
],
"text": [
"state governments"
]
}
|
5731bedce99e3014001e6241
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments. Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).
|
What was a recent case involving the application of the principle of the establishment clause against states?
|
{
"answer_start": [
545
],
"text": [
"Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet"
]
}
|
5731bedce99e3014001e6242
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments. Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).
|
When was the case of v. Grumet?
|
{
"answer_start": [
614
],
"text": [
"1994"
]
}
|
5ad14342645df0001a2d1464
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments. Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).
|
What landmark case hasn't impacted all subsequent interpretations of the separation of church and state in regard to state governments?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14342645df0001a2d1465
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments. Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).
|
What didn't the Supreme Court uphold in Everson v. Board of Education?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14342645df0001a2d1466
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments. Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).
|
What didn't the Supreme Court hold the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14342645df0001a2d1467
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments. Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).
|
What was a past case involving the application of the principle of the establishment clause against states?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5ad14342645df0001a2d1468
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments. Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).
|
When was the case of v. Prumet?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
5731c1e2e99e3014001e6252
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's concept of "separation of church and state" first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."
|
What did Jefferson's concept of 'separation of church and state" became part of what jurisprudence?
|
{
"answer_start": [
79
],
"text": [
"Establishment Clause"
]
}
|
5731c1e2e99e3014001e6253
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's concept of "separation of church and state" first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."
|
What case was Jefferson's concept apropos to?
|
{
"answer_start": [
117
],
"text": [
"Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145"
]
}
|
5731c1e2e99e3014001e6254
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's concept of "separation of church and state" first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."
|
What does the constitution guarantee when it comes to religion?
|
{
"answer_start": [
293
],
"text": [
"freedom"
]
}
|
5731c1e2e99e3014001e6255
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's concept of "separation of church and state" first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."
|
What word is not defined in the Constitution?
|
{
"answer_start": [
313
],
"text": [
"religion"
]
}
|
5731c1e2e99e3014001e6256
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's concept of "separation of church and state" first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."
|
Who had Jefferson's letter been sent to?
|
{
"answer_start": [
759
],
"text": [
"the Danbury Baptists"
]
}
|
5ad143a8645df0001a2d146e
|
Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
|
Jefferson's concept of "separation of church and state" first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."
|
Jefferson's concept of 'separation of church and state" didn't become part of what jurisprudence?
|
{
"answer_start": [],
"text": []
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.