Changes

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments plays an inevitable role in the legal debate over separation of church and state.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3619&context=lcp |title='Religion as an Engine of Civil Policy': A Comment of the First Amendment Limitations on the Church-State Partnership in the Social Welfare Field |last1=Pickrell |first1=Thomas W. |last2=Horwich |first2=Mitchell A. |date=1981 |journal=Law and Contemporary Problems |publisher=[[Duke University]] |volume=44 |issue=2 |accessdate=January 13, 2015}}</ref> The following are court cases in which Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments has played a role:

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments plays an inevitable role in the legal debate over separation of church and state.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3619&context=lcp |title='Religion as an Engine of Civil Policy': A Comment of the First Amendment Limitations on the Church-State Partnership in the Social Welfare Field |last1=Pickrell |first1=Thomas W. |last2=Horwich |first2=Mitchell A. |date=1981 |journal=Law and Contemporary Problems |publisher=[[Duke University]] |volume=44 |issue=2 |accessdate=January 13, 2015}}</ref> The following are court cases in which Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments has played a role:

* ''[[Rosenberger v. University of Virginia]]'' (1995: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments was the primary basis on which the decision was reached, with Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] determining that "The [Patrick Henry] assessment violated the 'equality' principle not because it allowed religious groups to participate in a generally available government program, but because the bill singled out religious entities for special benefits."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-329.ZC1.html |title=Ronald W. Rosenberger, et al., Petitioners v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia et al. |last1=Thomas |first1=Clarence |last2= |first2= |date=June 29, 1995 |website=[[Cornell University]] |publisher=[[Legal Information Institute]] |accessdate=January 13, 2015}}</ref>

* ''[[Rosenberger v. University of Virginia]]'' (1995) Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments was the primary basis on which the decision was reached, with Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] determining that "The [Patrick Henry] assessment violated the 'equality' principle not because it allowed religious groups to participate in a generally available government program, but because the bill singled out religious entities for special benefits."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-329.ZC1.html |title=Ronald W. Rosenberger, et al., Petitioners v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia et al. |last1=Thomas |first1=Clarence |last2= |first2= |date=June 29, 1995 |website=[[Cornell University]] |publisher=[[Legal Information Institute]] |accessdate=January 13, 2015}}</ref>

* ''[[Everson v. Board of Education]]'' (1947): Memorial and Remonstrance was referenced, along with the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, by Justice [[Hugo Black]], in ruling that the founders intended "strict separation" of church and state.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Munoz |first=Vincent Phillip |last2= |first2= |date= |title=The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause and the Impossibility of its Incorporation |url=http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=jcl |journal=Journal of Constitutional Law |publisher=[[University of Pennsylvania]] |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=588–590 |doi= |accessdate=January 13, 2015}}</ref> Black declared that "Madison wrote his great Memorial and Remonstrance against the law. In it, he eloquently argued that a true religion did not need the support of law; that no person, either believer or non-believer, should be taxed to support a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a society required that the minds of men always be wholly free; and that cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established religions."<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Tp |vol=330 |reporter= |opinion=1 |pinpoint= |court=Supreme Court |date=1947 |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=1 |accessdate=January 13, 2015 |quote=}}</ref>

* ''[[Everson v. Board of Education]]'' (1947): Memorial and Remonstrance was referenced, along with the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, by Justice [[Hugo Black]], in ruling that the founders intended "strict separation" of church and state.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Munoz |first=Vincent Phillip |last2= |first2= |date= |title=The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause and the Impossibility of its Incorporation |url=http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=jcl |journal=Journal of Constitutional Law |publisher=[[University of Pennsylvania]] |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=588–590 |doi= |accessdate=January 13, 2015}}</ref> Black declared that "Madison wrote his great Memorial and Remonstrance against the law. In it, he eloquently argued that a true religion did not need the support of law; that no person, either believer or non-believer, should be taxed to support a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a society required that the minds of men always be wholly free; and that cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established religions."<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Tp |vol=330 |reporter= |opinion=1 |pinpoint= |court=Supreme Court |date=1947 |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=1 |accessdate=January 13, 2015 |quote=}}</ref>