Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 23, 2025

Anti-war movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ukrainian anti-war protests in front of the Embassy of Russia in London against the Russian invasion of Ukraine (27 February 2022)

An anti-war movement is a social movement in opposition to one or more nations' decision to start or carry on an armed conflict. The term anti-war can also refer to pacifism, which is the opposition to all use of military force during conflicts, or to anti-war books, paintings, and other works of art. Some activists distinguish between anti-war movements and peace movements. Anti-war activists work through protest and other grassroots means to attempt to pressure a government (or governments) to put an end to a particular war or conflict or to prevent one from arising.

Anti-war rally of schoolchildren in Pilathara, India

History

American Revolutionary War

Substantial opposition to British war intervention in America led the British House of Commons on 27 February 1783 to vote against further war in America, paving the way for the Second Rockingham ministry and the Peace of Paris.

Antebellum United States

Substantial antiwar sentiment developed in the United States roughly between the end of the War of 1812 and the commencement of the Civil War in what is called the Antebellum era. A similar movement developed in England during the same period. The movement reflected both strict pacifist and more moderate non-interventionist positions. Many prominent intellectuals of the time, including Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau (see Civil Disobedience) and William Ellery Channing contributed literary works against war. Other names associated with the movement include William Ladd, Noah Worcester, Thomas Cogswell Upham, and Asa Mahan. Many peace societies were formed throughout the United States, the most prominent of which being the American Peace Society. Numerous periodicals (such as The Advocate of Peace) and books were also produced.

A recurring theme in this movement was the call for the establishment of an international court to adjudicate disputes between nations. Another distinct feature of antebellum antiwar literature was the emphasis on how war contributed to a moral decline and brutalization of society in general.

American Civil War

Rioters attack federal troops.

A key event in the early history of the modern anti-war stance in literature and society was the American Civil War, where it culminated in the candidacy of George B. McClellan for US president as a Peace Democrat against incumbent President Abraham Lincoln. The outlines of the antiwar stance are seen: the argument of the costs of maintaining the present conflict not being worth the gains that can be made, the appeal to end the horrors of war, and the argument of war being waged for the profit of particular interests.

During the war, the New York Draft Riots were started as violent protests against Lincoln's Enrollment Act of Conscription to draft men to fight in the war. The outrage over conscription was augmented by the ability to "buy" one's way out, which could be afforded only by the wealthy.

After the war, The Red Badge of Courage described the chaos and sense of death which resulted from the changing style of combat: away from the set engagement, and towards two armies engaging in continuous battle over a wide area.

Second Boer War

William Thomas Stead formed an organization against the Second Boer War, the Stop the War Committee.

World War I

The Deserter by Boardman Robinson, The Masses, 1916

In Britain, in 1914, the Public Schools Officers' Training Corps annual camp was held at Tidworth Camp, near Salisbury Plain. Head of the British Army Lord Kitchener was to review the cadets, but the imminence of the war prevented him. General Horace Smith-Dorrien was sent instead. He surprised the two-or-three thousand cadets by declaring (in the words of Donald Christopher Smith, a Bermudian cadet who was present) "that war should be avoided at almost any cost, that war would solve nothing, that the whole of Europe and more besides would be reduced to ruin, and that the loss of life would be so large that whole populations would be decimated. In our ignorance I, and many of us, felt almost ashamed of a British General who uttered such depressing and unpatriotic sentiments, but during the next four years, those of us who survived the holocaust-probably not more than one-quarter of us – learned how right the General's prognosis was and how courageous he had been to utter it." Having voiced these sentiments did not hinder Smith-Dorrien's career, or prevent him from carrying out his duty in the First World War to the best of his abilities.

With the increasing mechanization of war, opposition to its horrors grew, particularly in the wake of the First World War. European avant-garde cultural movements such as Dada were explicitly anti-war.

The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 gave the American authorities the right to close newspapers and jail individuals for having anti-war views.

On 16 June 1918, Eugene V. Debs made an anti-war speech and was arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917. He was convicted, sentenced to serve ten years in prison, but President Warren G. Harding commuted his sentence on 25 December 1921.

Between the World Wars

In 1924, Ernst Friedrich published Krieg dem Krieg! (War Against War!): an album of photographs drawn from German military and medical archives from the first world war. In Regarding the Pain of Others, Sontag describes the book as "photography as shock therapy" that was designed to "horrify and demoralize".

It was in the 1930s that the Western anti-war movement took shape, to which the political and organizational roots of most of the existing movement can be traced. Characteristics of the anti-war movement included opposition to the corporate interests perceived as benefiting from war, to the status quo which was trading the lives of the young for the comforts of those who are older, the concept that those who were drafted were from poor families and would be fighting a war in place of privileged individuals who were able to avoid the draft and military service, and to the lack of input in decision making that those who would die in the conflict would have in deciding to engage in it.

In 1933, the Oxford Union resolved in its Oxford Pledge, "That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country."

Many war veterans, including US General Smedley Butler, spoke out against wars and war profiteering on their return to civilian life.

Veterans were still extremely cynical about the motivations for entering World War I, but many were willing to fight later in the Spanish Civil War, indicating that pacifism was not always the motivation. These trends were depicted in novels such as All Quiet on the Western Front, For Whom the Bell Tolls and Johnny Got His Gun.

World War II

Protest at the White House by the American Peace Mobilization

Opposition to World War II was most vocal during its early period, and stronger still before it started while appeasement and isolationism were considered viable diplomatic options. Communist-led organizations, including veterans of the Spanish Civil War, opposed the war during the period starting with the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact but then turned into hawks after Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

The war seemed, for a time, to set anti-war movements at a distinct social disadvantage; very few, mostly ardent pacifists, continued to argue against the war and its results at the time. However, the Cold War followed with the post-war realignment, and the opposition resumed. The grim realities of modern combat, and the nature of mechanized society ensured that the anti-war viewpoint found presentation in Catch-22, Slaughterhouse-Five and The Tin Drum. This sentiment grew in strength as the Cold War seemed to present the situation of an unending series of conflicts, which were fought at terrible cost to the younger generations.

Vietnam War

U.S. Marshals arresting a Vietnam War protester in Washington, D.C., 1967

Organized opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War began slowly and in small numbers in 1964 on various college campuses in the United States and quickly as the war grew deadlier. In 1967 a coalition of antiwar activists formed the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam which organized several large anti-war demonstrations between the late 1960s and 1972. Counter-cultural songs, organizations, plays and other literary works encouraged a spirit of nonconformism, peace, and anti-establishmentarianism. This anti-war sentiment developed during a time of unprecedented student activism and right on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement, and was reinforced in numbers by the demographically significant baby boomers. It quickly grew to include a wide and varied cross-section of Americans from all walks of life. The anti-Vietnam war movement is often considered to have been a major factor affecting America's involvement in the war itself. Many Vietnam veterans, including future Secretary of State and U.S. Senator John Kerry and disabled veteran Ron Kovic, spoke out against the Vietnam War on their return to the United States.

Mrs. Ngo Ba Thanh, a Vietnamese peace activist, aligned her Vietnamese Women's Movement for the Right to Live with international activists of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) and Women Strike for Peace. Her imprisonment and publications about the war brought international attention to the social and economic issues created by the war and fostered international opposition to it. Her arrest and lack of a trial sparked Bella Abzug and WILPF members to write to the United States Congress and petition President Richard Nixon to appeal to South Vietnamese officials for her release, which was widely covered in the press. Campaigns opposing the war and conscription also took place in Australia.

South African Border War

Opposition to the South African Border War spread to a general resistance to the apartheid military. Organizations such as the End Conscription Campaign and Committee on South African War Resisters, were set up. Many opposed the war at this time.

Yugoslav Wars

Srđan Gojković performing at the anti-war concert as part of Rimtutituki

Following the rise of nationalism and political tensions after Slobodan Milošević came to power, as well as the outbreaks of the Yugoslav Wars, numerous anti-war movements developed in Serbia. The anti-war protests in Belgrade were held mostly because of opposition the Battle of Vukovar, Siege of Dubrovnik and Siege of Sarajevo, while protesters demanded the referendum on a declaration of war and disruption of military conscription.

More than 50,000 people participated in many protests, and more than 150,000 people took part in the most massive protest called "The Black Ribbon March" in solidarity with people in Sarajevo. It is estimated that between 50,000 and 200,000 people deserted from the Yugoslav People's Army, while between 100,000 and 150,000 people emigrated from Serbia refusing to participate in the war. According to professor Renaud De la Brosse, senior lecturer at the University of Reims and a witness called by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), it is surprising how great the resistance to Milošević's propaganda was among Serbs, given that and the lack of access to alternative news.

The most famous associations and NGOs who marked the anti-war ideas and movements in Serbia were the Center for Antiwar Action, Women in Black, Humanitarian Law Center and Belgrade Circle.The Rimtutituki was a rock supergroup featuring Ekatarina Velika, Električni Orgazam and Partibrejkers members, which was formed at the petition signing against mobilization in Belgrade.

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War triggered debates over the legitimacy of the intervention. About 2,000 Serbian Americans and anti-war activists protested in New York City against NATO airstrikes, while more than 7,000 people protested in Sydney. The most massive protests were held in Greece, and demonstrations were also held in American cities, French cities, Italian cities, London, Moscow, Brussels, Amsterdam, Toronto, Madrid, Berlin, Stuttgart, Salzburg and Skopje.

2001 Afghanistan War

Demonstration in Québec City against the Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan, 22 June 2007

There was initially little opposition to the 2001 Afghanistan War in the United States and the United Kingdom, which was seen as a response to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks and was supported by most of the American public. Most vocal opposition came from pacifist groups and groups promoting a left-wing political agenda. Over time, opposition to the war in Afghanistan has grown more widespread, partly as a result of weariness with the length of the conflict and partly as a result of a conflating of the conflict with the unpopular war in Iraq.

Iraq War

Anti-war rally in Washington, D.C., 15 March 2003
Thomas on the White House Peace Vigil

The anti-war position gained renewed support and attention in the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and its allies. Millions of people staged mass protests across the world in the immediate prelude to the invasion, and demonstrations and other forms of anti-war activism have continued throughout the occupation. The primary opposition within the U.S. to the continued occupation of Iraq has come from the grassroots. Opposition to the conflict, how it had been fought, and complications during the aftermath period divided public sentiment in the U.S., resulting in majority public opinion turning against the war for the first time in the spring of 2004, a turn which has held since.

The American country music band Dixie Chicks opposition to the war caused many radio stations to stop playing their records, but who were supported in their anti-war stance by the equally anti-war country music legend Merle Haggard, who in the summer of 2003 released a song critical of US media coverage of the Iraq War. Anti-war groups protested during both the Democratic National Convention and 2008 Republican National Convention protests held in Saint Paul, Minnesota, in September 2008.

Possible war against Iran

Organised opposition to a possible future military attack against Iran by the United States is known to have started during 2005–2006. Beginning in early 2005, journalists, activists and academics such as Seymour Hersh, Scott RitterJoseph Cirincione and Jorge E. Hirsch began publishing claims that United States' concerns over the alleged threat posed by the possibility that Iran may have a nuclear weapons program might lead the US government to take military action against that country in the future. These reports, and the concurrent escalation of tensions between Iran and some Western governments, prompted the formation of grassroots organisations, including Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran in the US and the United Kingdom, to oppose potential military strikes on Iran. Additionally, several individuals, grassroots organisations and international governmental organisations, including the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott RitterNobel Prize winners including Shirin Ebadi, Mairead Corrigan-Maguire and Betty Williams, Harold Pinter and Jody WilliamsCampaign for Nuclear DisarmamentCode Pink, the Non-Aligned Movement of 118 states, and the Arab League, have publicly stated their opposition to a would-be attack on Iran.

War in Donbass

Anti-war/Putin demonstration in Moscow, 21 September 2014

Anti-war/Putin demonstrations took place in Moscow "opposing the War in Donbass", i.e., in Eastern Ukraine.

Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen

Protest against U.S. involvement in the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, New York City, 2017

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

In May 2021, protests broke out following a flare-up of the Israel–Palestine conflict. In the U.S., thousands gathered in at least seven major cities across the country in solidarity with Palestinians. The 2021 conflict lasted from 6 May until 21 May when a ceasefire was signed. The following day, an estimated 180,000 protestors gathered in Hyde Park, England, in what may have been the largest pro-Palestine demonstration in British history. Speeches were made by anti-war campaigners and trade union members including demands that the UK government disinvest and sanction Israel. Messages such as "free Palestine" and "stop the war" were displayed on banners and placards and chanted by protesters. Despite the ceasefire, protests continued into June, with, for example, protestors in Oakland, California, attempting to block an Israeli cargo ship from entering the Port of Oakland on 4 June.

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Street protesters with signs are demonstrating in Helsinki, Finland after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.

Beginning in 2022, the anti-war movement was renewed following tensions between Russia and Ukraine. Protests escalated on 24 February 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin introduced prison sentences of up to 15 years for publishing "fake news" about Russian military operations. As of December 2022, more than 4,000 people, including Russian opposition politicians and journalists, had been prosecuted under Russia's "fake news" laws for criticizing the war in Ukraine.

2023 Israel–Gaza war

Multiple protests against the war took place around the world since the start of the Gaza war, mostly in support of Palestine.

Arts and culture

A peace symbol, originally designed for the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament movement (CND)

English poet Robert Southey's 1796 poem After Blenheim is an early modern example of anti-war literature that was written generations after the Battle of Blenheim but while Britain was again at war against France.

World War I produced a generation of poets and writers influenced by their experiences in the war. The work of poets, including Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, exposed the contrast between the realities of life in the trenches and how the war was seen by the British public at the time and the earlier patriotic verse penned by Rupert Brooke. The German writer Erich Maria Remarque penned All Quiet on the Western Front, which has been adapted for several mediums and has become of the most often cited pieces of anti-war media.

Pablo Picasso's 1937 painting Guernica on the other hand, used abstraction, rather than realism, to generate an emotional response to the loss of life from the Condor Legion and Aviazione Legionaria's bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. The American author Kurt Vonnegut used science fiction themes in his 1969 novel Slaughterhouse-Five, depicting the bombing of Dresden in World War II, which Vonnegut witnessed.

The second half of the 20th century also witnessed a strong anti-war presence in other art forms, including anti-war music such as "Eve of Destruction", "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" and "One Tin Soldier", and films such as M*A*S*H and Die Brücke, opposing the Cold War in general or specific conflicts such as the Vietnam War. The war in Iraq has also generated significant artistic anti-war works, including the American filmmaker Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which holds the box-office record for documentary films, and the Canadian musician Neil Young's 2006 album Living with War.

Anti-war intellectual and scientist-activists and their work

Various people have discussed the philosophical question of whether war is inevitable, and how it can be avoided; in other words, what are the necessities of peace. Various intellectuals and others have discussed it from an intellectual and philosophical point of view, not only in public, but participating or leading anti-war campaigns despite its differing from their main areas of expertise, leaving their professional comfort zones to warn against or fight against wars.

Philosophical possibility of avoiding war

  • Immanuel Kant: In (1795) "Perpetual Peace" ("Zum ewigen Frieden"). Immanuel Kant booklet on "Perpetual Peace" in 1795. Politically, Kant was one of the earliest exponents of the idea that perpetual peace could be secured through universal democracy and international cooperation.

Leading scientists and intellectuals

Here is a list of notable anti-war scientists and intellectuals:

Manifestos and statements by scientist and intellectual activists

  • Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and eight other leading scientists and intellectuals signed the Russell-Einstein Manifesto issued July 9, 1955.
  • The Mainau Declaration of 15 July 1955 was signed by 52 Nobel Prize laureates.
  • The Dubrovnik-Philadelphia Statement of 1974/1976 was signed by Linus Pauling and others.
  • Establishment Clause

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

    The Establishment Clause acts as a double security, prohibiting both control of the government by religion and political control of religion by the government. By it, the federal government of the United States and, by later extension, the governments of all U.S. states and U.S. territories, are prohibited from establishing or sponsoring religion.

    The clause was based on a number of precedents, including the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Bill of Rights 1689, and the first constitutions of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. An initial draft by John Dickinson was prepared in conjunction with his drafting the Articles of Confederation. In 1789, then-congressman James Madison prepared another draft which, after discussion and debate in the First Congress, would become part of the text of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The Establishment Clause is complemented by the Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits government interference with religious belief and, within limits, religious practice.

    The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation establishing an official religion and, by interpretation, makes it illegal for the government to promote theocracy or promote a specific religion with taxes. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from preventing the free exercise of religion. While the Establishment Clause prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government's involvement with religion to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

    Historical background

    Constitutions of Clarendon

    The Constitutions of Clarendon, a 12th-century English law, had prohibited criminal defendants' using religious laws (at that time, in medieval England, canon law of the Catholic Church) to seek exemption from criminal prosecution.

    1689 Bill of Rights

    The 1689 English Bill of Rights secured the rights of all "persons" to be free from establishment of Roman Catholic laws in the government of England.

    Colonial New Jersey and Pennsylvania Constitutions

    The original Mason-Dixon line was the demarcation line between the Catholic colony of Maryland and the New Jersey and Pennsylvania colonies, which followed the 1689 Bill of Rights and their own colonial constitutions which provided similar protections against the establishment of Catholic laws in government.

    Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

    A possible additional precursor of the Free Exercise Clause was the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The statute was drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1777 and was introduced in the Virginia General Assembly in 1779. It did not pass the General Assembly until 1786. James Madison played an important role in its passage. The statute disestablished the Church of England in Virginia and guaranteed freedom of religion exercise to men of all religious faiths, including Catholics and Jews as well as members of all Protestant denominations.

    United States Bill of Rights

    The First Amendment is part of a group of 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was proposed by George Mason five days before the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia in 1787. His proposal was rejected by the other delegates. Alexander Hamilton later argued in The Federalist Papers that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, claiming that since the Constitution granted limited powers to the federal government, it did not grant the new government the power to abuse the rights that would be secured by a Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, the supporters of the Constitution (known as Federalists) in order to secure its ratification in Massachusetts, agreed to add a group of amendments to the Constitution after its ratification that would serve as a Bill of Rights. Later, six more states likewise recommended the addition of a Bill of Rights, and the idea was also endorsed by Jefferson and Madison. When the First Federal Congress met in 1789, Madison implemented the idea by introducing 17 Amendments to the Constitution. By December 1791, ten of his Amendments were ratified by the necessary three quarters of the states, and they became part of the US Constitution, thereafter becoming known as "the Bill of Rights".

    Concerns of Virginia Baptists

    The Establishment Clause addressed the concerns of members of minority faiths who did not want the federal government to establish a state religion for the entire nation. The Baptists in Virginia, for example, had suffered discrimination prior to the state's disestablishment of the Anglican church in 1786. As Virginia prepared to hold its elections to the state ratifying convention in 1788, the Baptists were concerned that the Constitution had no safeguard against the creation of a new national church. In Orange County, Virginia, two federalist candidates, James Madison and James Gordon Jr., were running against two anti-federalists (opponents of the Constitution), Thomas Barbour and Charles Porter. Barbour requested to John Leland, an influential Baptist preacher and fervent lifelong proponent of religious liberty, that he write a letter to Barbour outlining his objections to the proposed Constitution. Leland stated in the letter that, among his other concerns, the Constitution had no Bill of Rights and no safeguards for religious liberty and freedom of the press. A number of historians have concluded on the basis of compelling circumstantial evidence that, just prior to the election in March 1788, Madison met with Leland and gained his support of ratification by addressing these concerns and providing him with the necessary reassurances. In any event, Leland cast his vote for Madison. Leland's support, according to Scarberry, was likely important to the overwhelming victory of Madison and Gordon.

    Incorporation

    Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Subsequently, by the Incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights has been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. The process of incorporating the two Religion Clauses in the First Amendment was twofold. The first step was the Supreme Court's conclusion in 1940 that the Free Exercise Clause was made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Conceptually, this raised few difficulties: the Due Process Clause protects those rights in the Bill of Rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," and free exercise of religion is a quintessential individual right (and had been recognized as such at the state level from the beginning).

    Incorporation of the Establishment Clause in 1947 proved to be problematic in several ways and subject to criticism. The controversy concerning its incorporation results primarily from the fact that one of the intentions of the Establishment Clause was to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments of religion that existed at the time of the founding (at least six states had established religions at the founding) – a fact conceded by even those members of the Court who believe the Establishment Clause was made applicable to the states through incorporation. Critics, such as Clarence Thomas, have also argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to incorporate only individual rights found in the Bill of Rights; the Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause (which critics readily concede protects individual rights), does not purport to protect individual rights.

    Financial assistance

    Prior to American independence, most of the original colonies supported religious activities with taxes, with several colonies choosing a single church as its official religion. These official churches enjoyed privileges not granted to other religious groups. Massachusetts and Connecticut supported the Congregational church by taxes. In colonial South Carolina, the Anglican Church benefited from church taxes. Other colonies would more generally assist religion by requiring taxes that would partially fund religious institutions - taxpayers could direct payments to the Protestant denomination of their choosing. Only the colonies of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island did not require a tax to support religion. During and after the American Revolution, religious minorities, such as the Methodists and the Baptists, argued that taxes to support religion violated freedoms won from the British. Defenders of the practice argued that government needed to fund religious institutions because public virtue depended on these institutions which could not survive purely on private donations.

    The Supreme Court first considered the question of financial assistance to religious organizations in Bradfield v. Roberts (1899). The federal government had funded a hospital operated by a Roman Catholic institution. In that case, the Court ruled that the funding was to a secular organization – the hospital – and was therefore permissible.

    During the twentieth century, the Supreme Court more closely scrutinized government activity involving religious institutions. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held,

    The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

    The New Jersey law was upheld, for it applied "to all its citizens without regard to their religious belief". After Everson, lawsuits in several states sought to disentangle public monies from religious teaching, the leading case being the 1951 Dixon School Case of New Mexico.

    The Jefferson quotation cited in Black's opinion is from a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, that there should be "a wall of separation between church and state." Critics of Black's reasoning (most notably, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist) have argued that the majority of states did have "official" churches at the time of the First Amendment's adoption and that James Madison, not Jefferson, was the principal drafter. However, Madison himself often wrote of "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Livingston), which means the authority of the church (that which comes from the church) is decided by church authority, and that which is decided in civil government is decided by civil authorities; neither may decree law or policy in each other's realm. Another description reads: "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Adams), and "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches).

    In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that government may not "excessively entangle" with religion. The case involved two Pennsylvania laws: one permitting the state to "purchase" services in secular fields from religious schools, and the other permitting the state to pay a percentage of the salaries of private school teachers, including teachers in religious institutions. The Supreme Court found that the government was "excessively entangled" with religion, and invalidated the statutes in question. The excessive entanglement test, together with the secular purpose and primary effect tests thereafter became known as the Lemon test, which judges have often used to test the constitutionality of a statute on establishment clause grounds.

    The Supreme Court decided Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist and Sloan v. Lemon in 1973. In both cases, states—New York and Pennsylvania—had enacted laws whereby public tax revenues would be paid to low-income parents so as to permit them to send students to private schools. It was held that in both cases, the state unconstitutionally provided aid to religious organizations. The ruling was partially reversed in Mueller v. Allen (1983). There, the Court upheld a Minnesota statute permitting the use of tax revenues to reimburse parents of students. The Court noted that the Minnesota statute granted such aid to parents of all students, whether they attended public or private schools.

    While the Court has prevented states from directly funding parochial schools, it has not stopped them from aiding religious colleges and universities. In Tilton v. Richardson (1971), the Court permitted the use of public funds for the construction of facilities in religious institutions of higher learning. It was found that there was no "excessive entanglement" since the buildings were themselves not religious, unlike teachers in parochial schools, and because the aid came in the form of a one-time grant, rather than continuous assistance. One of the largest recent controversies over the amendment centered on school vouchers—government aid for students to attend private and predominantly religious schools. The Supreme Court, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), upheld the constitutionality of private school vouchers, turning away an Establishment Clause challenge.

    State-sanctioned prayer in public schools

    Earl Warren was Chief Justice when Engel v. Vitale was decided.

    Further important decisions came in the 1960s, during the Warren Court era. One of the Court's most controversial decisions came in Engel v. Vitale in 1962. The case involved the mandatory daily recitation by public school officials of a prayer written by the New York Board of Regents, which read "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country". The Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional and struck it down, with Justice Black writing "it is no part of the official business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried out by the Government." The reading of the Lord's Prayer or of the Bible in the classroom of a public school by the teacher was ruled unconstitutional in 1963. The ruling did not apply to parochial or private schools in general. The decision has been met with both criticism and praise. Many social conservatives are critical of the court's reasoning, including the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Conversely, the ACLU and other civil libertarian groups hailed the court's decision.

    In Abington Township v. Schempp (1963), the case involving the mandatory reading of the Lord's Prayer in class, the Supreme Court introduced the "secular purpose" and "primary effect" tests, which were to be used to determine compatibility with the establishment clause. Essentially, the law in question must have a valid secular purpose, and its primary effect must not be to promote or inhibit a particular religion. Since the law requiring the recital of the Lord's Prayer violated these tests, it was struck down. The "excessive entanglement" test was added in Lemon v. Kurtzman (vide supra).

    In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the Supreme Court struck down an Alabama law whereby students in public schools would observe daily a period of silence for the purpose of private prayer. The Court did not, however, find that the moment of silence was itself unconstitutional. Rather, it ruled that Alabama lawmakers had passed the statute solely to advance religion, thereby violating the secular purpose test.

    The 1990s were marked by controversies surrounding religion's role in public affairs. In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the offering of prayers by religious officials before voluntarily attending ceremonies such as graduation. Thus, the Court established that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions even if attendance was not strictly compulsory. In Lee the Court developed the coercion test. Under this test the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it (1) provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church, or (2) coerces people to support or participate in religion against their will. In Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000), the Court ruled that a vote of the student body could not authorize student-led prayer prior to school events.

    In 2002, controversy centered on a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2002), which struck down a California law providing for the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (which includes the phrase "under God") in classrooms. Each House of Congress passed resolutions reaffirming their support for the pledge; the Senate vote was 99–0 and the House vote was 416–3. The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case, but did not rule on the merits, instead reversing the Ninth Circuit's decision on standing grounds.

    Religious displays

    The inclusion of religious symbols in public holiday displays came before the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), and again in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989). In the former case, the Court upheld the public display of a crèche, ruling that any benefit to religion was "indirect, remote, and incidental." In Allegheny County, however, the Court struck down a crèche display, which occupied a prominent position in the county courthouse and bore the words Gloria in Excelsis Deo, the words sung by the angels at the Nativity (Luke 2:14 in the Latin Vulgate translation). At the same time, the Allegheny County Court upheld the display of a nearby menorah, which appeared along with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty, reasoning that "the combined display of the tree, the sign, and the menorah ... simply recognizes that both Christmas and Hanukkah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society." In Lynch v. Donnelly the Supreme Court also developed with the endorsement test a further test to determine the constitutionality under the Establishment Clause of certain government actions.

    In 2001, Roy Moore, then Chief Justice of Alabama, installed a monument to the Ten Commandments in the state judicial building. In 2003, he was ordered in the case of Glassroth v. Moore by a federal judge to remove the monument, but he refused to comply, ultimately leading to his removal from office. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, allowing the lower court's decision to stand.

    On March 2, 2005, the Supreme Court heard arguments for two cases involving religious displays, Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. These were the first cases directly dealing with display of the Ten Commandments the Court had heard since Stone v. Graham (1980). These cases were decided on June 27, 2005. In Van Orden, the Court upheld, by a 5–4 vote, the legality of a Ten Commandments display at the Texas State Capitol due to the monument's "secular purpose". In McCreary County, however, the Court ruled 5–4 that displays of the Ten Commandments in several Kentucky county courthouses were unconstitutional because they were not clearly integrated with a secular display, and thus were considered to have a religious purpose.

    Blue laws

    In the 1964 case McGowan v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that blue laws which restricted the sale of goods on Sundays (and were originally intended to increase Church attendance) did not violate the Establishment Clause because they served a present secular purpose of providing a uniform day of rest for everyone.

    Establishment Clause for the states dispute

    Clarence Thomas, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, has disputed that the Establishment Clause applies to the states, thereby making it possible for the states to establish a state religion.

    In 2013, North Carolina politicians proposed a bill that could have seen North Carolina establish an official religion for the state.

    An 2013 YouGov poll found that 34% of people would favor establishing Christianity as the official state religion in their own state, 47% would be opposed and 19% were undecided.

    Misinformation related to birth control

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_related_to_birth_control 

    Misinformation related to birth control pertains to incorrect or misleading information surrounding birth control and its medical, legal and societal implications. This misinformation is mostly related to contraceptive methods that do not contain basis in science. Belief in this misinformation can deter people from using effective solutions in favor of solutions that are entirely ineffective and, in some cases, harmful to health.

    Reasons for birth control myths

    Some reasons that individuals may believe in birth control myths include:

    • Naturalness bias. As a form of automatic (unconscious) cognitive bias, people may psychologically view products or methods that are branded as more "natural" as always also being "linked to purity and safety". This is not necessarily a correct type of assumption, for various reasons. For example, entirely natural substances such as bacteria or cyanide can be deadly.
    • Exaggerated or false news media reports, combined with a lack of access to effective educational programs.
    • Uncertain, fearful, or anxious thought processes and emotions. For some individuals, these may be encouraged by some online testimonials that contain excessive fearmongering about hormonal birth control. These may include posts on social media platforms like TikTok, that spread birth control myths. A 2025 study found that most such videos are inaccurate, many consisted of anecdotes, and 90 percent of the video creators lacked a medical background. Viewers might not be shown more accurate advice, due to a social media algorithm. The intimate presentation of a social media video may feel relatively authentic, though social media influencers "often make money from posts 'sponsored' by various companies". By comparison, licensed medical doctors are liable under legal statutes (such as the Anti-Kickback Statute). Though doctors attempt to provide patient autonomy and informed consent, there may also be a feeling of medical autonomy with social media videos. However, creators without medical credentials may suggest less effective birth control methods that are more likely to fail and cause an unintended pregnancy.
    • Insufficient contraceptive counseling. Some individuals may not have had their concerns initially addressed by medical providers, or may not have had access to adequate information.

    Common myths

    Purported adverse side effects

    Claim Refutation
    Increased sexually transmitted infection (STI) risk. Some forms of birth control, namely condoms and dental dams, can prevent the transmission of STIs by providing a barrier for skin to skin contact and fluid exchange. Some forms of hormonal birth control, such as the pill, prevent pregnancy but do not prevent the spread of STIs. The pill has been shown preliminarily to increase the chances of certain types of STI transmission slightly, while lowering the risk of spread of others.
    Fertility problems. Research shows that both long and short term birth control pills do not affect the future ability to have children. Individuals with IUDs can get pregnant after the IUD is removed. Fertility declines with age, and it has no significant effect on use of birth control methods.

    Oral contraceptives prevent pregnancy temporarily but haven to been shown to significantly impact future fertility. The body's hormonal balance typically restores to regular, pre-pill levels within a few cycles after discontinuing the pill.

    Pelvic inflammatory disease causation. The risk of developing pelvic inflammatory disease following the insertion of an IUD has been proven to be very low. IUDs are considered amongst the safest and most effective forms of birth control.
    Libido and/or sexual attraction impacts. While hormonal birth control such as the pill may impact libido, most people taking birth control won't experience any change. For the small percentage that do, some may experienced decreased libido, while others may experience increased libido.

    Studies with larger sample sizes and more rigorous methodologies found no change in preference for masculine or feminine faces as a result of birth control pills. Earlier studies had small sample sizes, and failed to replicate in later research.

    Explosion of testicles, from male birth control. The false claim originates from a satire website.
    Stroke or blood clots. While birth control pills, namely those containing estrogen, have been shown to increase the risk of blood clots, this increase is small—at most 10 in 10,000 people per year develop blood clots from being on birth control pills. Women with a history of blood clots are at much higher risk and should consult a doctor.

    Individuals with uncontrolled high blood pressure, lupus, migraines with aura or depression needing further monitoring are not given birth control pills containing combination hormones because it increases their chances of getting a stroke or blood clots elsewhere in the body. In that case, an IUD is a better choice.

    Impacts on cancer risk. Birth control pills actually decrease the chance of getting endometrial, ovarian and colon cancer.
    Weight loss or gain. Studies have shown that the effect of birth control pills on weight gain is relatively small or nil. Birth control pills can cause some water retention, possibly leading to an increase of about two or three pounds. The progesterone components of the pill can make some people more hungry, leading to weight gain.
    Effects on depression symptoms, mood, and premenstrual symptoms. Harvard Medical School says that the risk of depression from birth control is "small but real", affecting just "2.2 out of 100 women who used hormonal birth control". The risk decreases with age. Some doctors suggest that the balance of different risks must be considered since, e.g. "intimate partner violence is linked to depression, and an unwanted pregnancy may be further detrimental to the woman's health and well-being." The American Medical Association says that women prescribed with birth control should be adequately monitored for mood changes, however one "of the benefits of birth-control pills is they decrease premenstrual dysphoric disorder".

    Some research finds birth control can actually reduce depression under the right circumstances. A 2025 study said that length of use matters, and each additional year of birth control use decreased depression risk further.

    Menstrual cycles/maternity

    Claim Refutation
    Women are only fertile one day of the month. While women's cycles are generally regular, hormones involved in the menstrual cycle can be impacted by a number of factors, including medication and stress. This can cause ovulation to happen on a different day than expected, or for more than one day per month, resulting in fertile days that a woman may not anticipate even if actively tracking her cycle.
    Women can't get pregnant right after their period. Although ovulation typically occurs around 10–16 days before the next period, various factors can cause early ovulation in any given cycle; some women also have naturally short ovulation cycles, making them more likely to get pregnant closer to the end of their period.
    Breastfeeding prevents pregnancy. Breastfeeding is shown to help prevent ovulation in certain circumstances: the baby is younger than 6 months old; breastfeeding happens at least every four hours during the day and every six hours overnight; the woman is currently not having her period. While adhering strictly to these conditions shows success rates similar to hormonal birth control, they are difficult to adhere to and may not be practical for many women.

    Sexual practices

    Claim Refutation
    If a woman doesn't orgasm, she can't get pregnant. Women ovulate each month as part of their regular menstrual cycle. Pregnancy occurs when a sperm fertilizes an egg that has been released in ovulation. This happens regardless of whether a woman has an orgasm.
    If a woman douches after sex, she won't get pregnant. Douching is washing out the vagina with fluids. It does not prevent pregnancy and is often advised against more generally by doctors.
    A woman won't get pregnant if she has sex standing up or is on top. Sperm is able to move up the cervical canal regardless of the position the woman is in during sex.
    Plastic wrap or a balloon (etc.) can be acceptable substitutes for a condom. Plastic wrap and balloons, other than not being designed for the shape of a penis, are not durable and may not serve as an effective barrier.
    A woman won't get pregnant if a man pulls out before ejaculation. While more effective than no birth control at all, pulling out before ejaculation is less effective than other birth control methods—approximately one in five people who rely on this method will get pregnant.
    A woman can't get pregnant if it is her first time having sex. The number of times a woman has had sex has no bearing on whether or not she can become pregnant—a woman can become pregnant the first time she has sex.
    A woman won't get pregnant if she takes a shower or urinates after sex. While urinating after sex may help prevent infections like UTIs, it will not prevent pregnancy.

    Substances erroneously believed to be contraceptive

    Claim Refutation
    Various vaccines, including those for tetanus, COVID-19, smallpox, etc. False claims about fertility have been made. No vaccines have been found to be associated with infertility.
    Plants, such as smartweed, wild yam, Pennroyal, Black Cohosh, Angelica, papaya, neem, asafoetida, figs and ginger. None of these plants have been found to be beneficial for achieving contraception.

    Misconceptions and myths around how birth control works

    Claim Refutation
    Birth control causes abortions. Though false, belief in this misconception has caused reduced access to birth control. Birth control is prevention, not interruption of pregnancy. However, between 2022 and 2024, a number of lawmakers across the United States publicized claims that IUDs and morning-after pills cause abortions and should therefore not be funded by taxpayer money. In 2022, a group of conservative, anti-abortion Missouri lawmakers attempted to stop their state's Medicaid from paying for emergency contraceptives and IUDs on these grounds. In February 2024, Oklahoma lawmakers proposed a bill to ban the morning-after pill and some IUDs. In May 2024, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed a bill protecting access to contraception, citing that some Virginians believed contraception causes abortions and thus protecting access would intrude on their religious freedoms. These false assertions and the publicity surrounding them have amounted to barriers to access to birth control–in the 13 states in the United States that had total abortion bans at the end of 2024, many women believe they can no longer access some forms of birth control. A survey in 2023 found that almost half of women in states where abortion is fulled banned believe Plan B is illegal in their states.
    Birth control pills are effective immediately after taking the initial dose(s). Different types of pills have different windows for when efficacy begins, though none is immediately effective after the initial dose.
    IUDs cannot or should not be used prior to having had a baby. IUDs are completely safe to use even in individuals who have never been pregnant before.
    Antibiotics impact the efficacy of birth control pills. Except for a tuberculosis drug Rifampicin, antibiotics generally do not decrease the efficacy of birth control pills.

    Anti-war movement

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-war_...