U.S. Supreme Court Decisions - Separation of Church and State
(arranged by date)
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)
Court finds that the federal antibigamy statute does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.
Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.
Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
They may have a religious function, but they have other functions. Moreover, they're organizations.
An early function was to run schools, colleges, hospitals. They also helped the poor, set up sop kitchens, that sort of thing. Many still do this. Even in their primary function as religious organizations, they still teach things like morality and ethics.
Some of what you need to know is historical. Churches were a big part of the impetus for reading and writing. Early universities were set up to train good Xians and to provide preachers. This kind of thinking was responsible for establishing a lot of schools in the 1800s and even in the 1900s, before people like Dewey set societal homogenization as a goal for public schools.
They've been socially and politically active over the years. When we have churches agitating for emancipation, for universal sufferage, against war, and for civil rights there's little for most liberals and progressives to complain about. When they agitate against same-sex marriage, then we complain. They tend to reflect society and some think that society not only must but actually does reflect just their own personal views. So much for diversity.
In all of this, churches are non-profit. They may pay their officers, sometimes very well, but they have no shareholders. They have only stakeholders. They may acquire property, but in the event of dissolving the corporation the assets get distributed not to individuals but to other non-profits.
In this, they're like the Nature Conservancy, Greenpeace, the National Organization for Women, the California Institute of Technology, or any number of nonprofits. Heck, I was involved in a student coop that had the same kinds of rules--income of $80 million, decent profit after expenses, had large, expensive buildings, and yet the money was returned to stakeholders (after retaining some for a rainy-day fund) and in the event the coop died the money went to educational non-profits.
They can hold political views as well as social views or economic views. Like any other non-profit. And, like any other non-profit, they are barred from holding partisan views. Partisan means, in this case, supporting one political party over another, esp. when it comes to their candidates. There are "good" Republicans who voted for Romney who support same-sex marriage; that cause may be identified more with (D) than with (R), but it doesn't define you as (D). You may be against granting illegal aliens citizenship, something that's billed as (R), but many Democrats hold that view. However, it's hard to be a member of the Republican Party and campaign for Obama/Biden and vote for Obama/Biden. That's sort of a defining trait of being a party member--supporting the party's candidates. It's hard to be a member of the Democratic Party and push for Romney/? (he had to have a running mate, the name eludes me just now) and vote for them and still really be a Democrat.
Saying to vote for a candidate gets you in trouble, or should. Saying to support some legislation or in states with constitutional measures for a measure or proposition is party-neutral in the way that counts.
To treat churches special and deny them the same kind of party-neutral speech or to punish them for engaging in the same kind of party-neutral speech that other non-profits can engage in would amount to religious discrimination. *That* is unconstitutional. So when we're prepared to make all colleges, social organizations, activist groups, social-aid groups and churches all equally taxable *then* churches will start paying property taxes just like, well, your local hospital, your local food bank, your local environmental organization, your local private school, and even your local cactus and succulent society. 
