Church-State Relations in Crisis

Increasingly the Supreme Court's strict separationist, no-aid-to-religion doctrine that was in favour during the 1970s and 1980s is being challenged by a new approach aimed at equal treatment or neutrality. In ""Church-State Relations in Crisis"", political scientist Stephen V. Monsma explores the neutrality principle and arguments for and against it. Monsma uses the Supreme Court's Mitchell versus Helms decision as the starting point for his discussion and argues that Mitchell versus Helms more directly than any other decision was based on this new idea of neutrality in Church-state relations. Monsma examines the three, strongly worded opinions of the court, and presents ten diverse essays by leading scholars analyzing the opinions and their impact on the establishment clause interpretation and public policy. Designed specifically for students of the law and religion and politics, ""Church-State Relations in Crisis"" offers a well-balanced collection and a source for debate on the future of government and religion in the United States.