Can Establishment Be Consistent With Religious Freedom?

One of the main reasons that the settlers came and founded America was for religious freedom. Colonist made the long and dangerous journey for other reasons as well, but a major factor was the search for religious freedom. Coming to America alone did not solve this problem; the journey to religious freedom was just that, a journey. Everyone had a slightly different idea of what this new nation’s ‘religious freedom’ should look like and it took many years to come to a compromise.

Religion is a pivotal aspect in society to date with a diverse array of religions known to be practised in Australia, creating opportunities to embrace individuality though also sparking social divisions. French sociologist, Emile Durkheim described religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community”(Jones, 2011). So how does religion influence Australian society? With a vast incline in religions practised in Australia, it is extremely feasible to presume that it does affect Australia significantly. It is through cultural diversity, morality and ethics and laws in which the true relevance of religion in Australian society can be identified.

After reading this article, I was impressed that the impact of Roger Williams’ idea – “separation of church and state” still reach into today’s world and countries. I was also surprised that at 17th century, people don’t have freedom of worship or belief.

Furthermore, both primary documents center on religion, ‘congregational church and church officials’ mentioned in the Virginia Laws and ‘in the name of God’ stated in the Compact. This proves that the starting colonial self-governments were frameworks of theocracies. In addition, both sources referred to not only devotion as key to survival in the foreign lands, but also obedience and order. The third document also is based on religion, but it highlights a concept that both other documents deride, religious tolerance.

The portrayal of the separation of church and state, and the harmony in the middle of law and religion, is one of persevering disarray in current American protected hypothesis and origination. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is generally accepted to be the determination of this mass of partition, on the other hand, the Framers never purposed such a divider. Some portion of the perplexity in comprehension religious freedom inside of the setting of the political, lawful, and social measurements of America lives in the United States Supreme Court's foundation and free practice

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The state can't compel supported religious action on its nationals by constraining them to pick amongst participation and their own particular intrinsically secured rights.

While writing the constitution the founding fathers said “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” When they said this they

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution founded the concrete belief that government and faith-based institutions must and will remain separate from one another. This section of the first amendment disavows the U.S. government to establish or sanction any system of organized faiths or religions upon the people or to outlaw or disgrace any systems of organized faiths as well. But the line discerning the legitimacy of a faith and the true extent of the government's power over faith-based organizations has only remained to become muddled over the past 240 years of its establishment. Over the years, the ideology and true intent of the founding fathers had remained in question, where some believe the amendment addresses to the general

The only power the secular government should have are matters of “actions only, & not opinions.” These words echo that of Luther who believed that “... need no ruler ought to prevent anyone from teaching or believing what he pleases, whether Gospel or lies. It is enough if he prevents the teaching of sedition and rebellion (Luther, 22).” Two hundred years later, the influence of Luther’s theology and concept of the separation of Church and state influenced those who founded of the United States of America. This would then lead them to make the separation of Church and state the cornerstone of modern

The essay then continues to investigate the faith of the founding fathers and their claims of faith, and the presence of religion in the Constitutional Convention. The next part of the essay addresses Christianity

The act of defining religion has been a contentious issue in a wide variety of situations, particularly in the United States. The US is a nation that prides itself on religious inclusivity and freedom. There are consequences to this belief and tenant. Through the social, legal and moral structures of the United States, defining religion has become imperative. In The Impossibility of Religious Freedom, Winifred Sullivan outlines the legal implications of defining religion in the United States. In order for religious freedom to be protected by the American state, religion must be clearly defined. As a result, religious theory must be used to maintain some semblance of religious freedom in the United States. Likewise, Josh Dubler’s Down in

The First Amendment declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The fundamental ideas behind the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause are both involved in the literature of this statement. Both of these clauses support the separation of government involvement in religious affairs. Nonetheless, the Establishment Clause is distinct from the former because it specifically “requires a degree of separation between church and state” (Rossum, 281).

There have been a multitude of debates regarding the various approaches to establishment. For instance, a strict separation approach declares that the state can indirectly support a religion establishment, but can have no direct involvement. As

respect to religion: the right to be free from government-imposed religion and a right to practice

As Peter Berger (1967) explained religion, it is a sacred canopy under which the entirety of life is explained and regulated. Secularization theory as explained by Weber holds that modernity challenges this sacred canopy through two major ways: increased cultural and structural pluralism and increased primacy of economic pursuits (Emerson and Hartman, 2006:129). With globalisation accelerating in the post Cold War era, causing mass migration across borders, increased interstate interaction and huge growth in the global financial market, it was predicted that religious influence would be relegated to the private sectors of social life by ripping the sacred canopy, and leaving people with, at best, sacred umbrellas (Smith 1998). Despite this, what secularization theory did not anticipate is that the demystification of the world provided within it the seeds both for the re-mystification of the world and resistance to the demystification (Berger, 1992:1). Hence the world today, with some exceptions, is as furiously religious as it ever was, in some places more so than ever (Berger, 1999:8). Since the 1970s there has been a particular rise in religious fundamentalist movements, as signalled by the Iranian Revolution in 1979 led by Ayatollah Khomeini, which led to the establishment of the first Islamic State. As Almond et al note, fundamentalist movements have risen to the highest levels of power in Sudan in 1993, Afghanistan and India in 1996, and in India again