Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 4 - The Religious Struggle

  • Ursula Hackett, Royal Holloway, University of London
  • Book:
    America's Voucher Politics
    Published online:
    20 April 2020
    Print publication:
    07 May 2020, pp 79-107

  • Summary

    Secularist forces in America’s religious struggle believe that church and state should be separated as completely as possible, while their accommodationist opponents believe the state should encourage religious activity. As the accommodationist order in America’s religious struggle gave way to secularist forces during the period of church–state activism by the Warren and Burger Courts (1953–86) on issues such as school prayer, evolution, and religious exemptions, accommodationists sought refuge in weakly attenuated voucher programs. This chapter shows how accommodationists came to rely upon a child benefit theory defense in court that emphasized the benefits to the child, rather than to the school. Accommodationists saw the rise of judicial secularism as a threat to their interests. Indirect benefits channeled through parents seemed to help insulate the state from secularist opposition. But most quasi-direct vouchers of the latter half of the twentieth century were struck down as unconstitutional because they entangled the state with religious purposes.