Metaphor Changes Church-State Law, Policy, And Discourse

David Barton’s Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion, breaks down the significance of how religion was intended in the First Amendment and its effect on the phrase, “Separation of Church and State.” Barton well illustrates how the founding fathers incorporated the position of religion into the First Amendment. Barton explains how the House Judiciary Committee believes, “The founders did respect other religions; however, they neither promoted pluralism nor intended that the First Amendment do so” (175). They continue to discuss how the founding fathers were all Christians and they expect it to remain that way in the lives of the citizens. In Barton’s views of the First Amendment, he believes it has changed dramastically

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress

With this portion of response including the metaphor wall of separation, it is this figure of speech that historians have concluded to be the surrounding justification of what is currently utilized throughout the findings of courts and moral explanation of the separation of church and state as we currently know it today. However, even that assumption has been challenged on several levels from Chief Justice’s findings of various Supreme Court cases, including Justice Hugo Black’s restatement in the 1947 Everson decision, to the scholarly reflection of numerous university faculties attempting to prove point for rationale of a lesson delivery at the public university level (Hemmer, 2009; Araujo, 2013).

I sat down at my kitchen table with Michael Bruxvoort, a friend and fellow Tar Heel at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on October 25th, 2015. We laughed and talked about his journey through life and all the memories, obstacles and pleasures along the way. Among the many topics we spoke about, the ones that seemed most relevant to him and myself were: the family dynamics of religion within his household, his process of religion through secular spaces and lastly, his transition to Chapel Hill, NC and making it his home. Our conversation through Michael 's life shows how his faith has shaped him to be the man he is today. Through this paper, I will explain and analyze these topics in hopes of better understanding geographies of religion.

Reno, R.R. "Defending religious liberty." First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life 225 (2012): 3+. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

Our first amendment to the United States Constitution reads; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

One of the protections offered in the Bill of rights is the free exercise of religion. The first amendment contained in the Bill of rights stated that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Ginsberg, et al. 2015, P. 122). The freedom of religion is a great example of one of the protections contained in the bill of rights. The first amendment and the freedom of religion contain an establishment clause. This limit of governmental power puts a separation between the church and state. The Government, for instance, is not allowed to establish an official church and may not take sides among

In the First Amendment it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is known as the Establishment Clause, and it has been a controversial topic of many Supreme Court cases throughout America’s history. There are three different methods of constitutional interpretation--textualism, intentionalism, and pragmatism—that have shaped the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is usually interpreted in two different ways: “The Establishment Clause prohibits government actions—federal, state, or local—that promote religion,” and that “The Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion.” There is a common metaphor that accompanies the Establishment Clause know as the “wall of separation.” The Establishment Clause has this “wall” in order to keep the church and state separate. This is a reoccurring theme I have seen develop throughout various court cases. I studied four different cases that made it to the Supreme Court: Everson vs. Board of Education, Lynch vs. Donnelly, Lee vs. Weisman, and Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Jane Doe. During the brief period of me studying these four cases involving the Establishment Clause, I have inferred that pragmatism has indicated the utmost dominance in shaping the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause.

The First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of

Every single person in the United States have the right to express their religion of preference or no religion at all, however him or her wants without offending anybody, and the best way to protect religion’s liberty was by keeping the government out if it and creating this First Amendment freedom of religion, to separate the church from the state.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

“Religion is a ritualized system of beliefs and practices related to things defined as sacred by an organized community of believers.” (Basirico et.al. 379). Religion is an important element in the society because it influences the way individuals act and think. It has shaped the relationship and bonding among families as well as influenced the decision made in economics and politics. Religion in general has contributed to shape a society and a government structure which will influence the way the individuals under certain governmental structure behave. Sociologists are interested in religion mainly because religious belief is heavily rooted in individuals’ lives and it helps sociologists to interpret human’s actions, expression, and

In his book, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, Peter L. Berger details a sociological approach to viewing religion as a human necessity. Berger argues that humans go through the process of “world-building” in order to create the human-specific order they lack biologically. Berger’s theory depends primarily on three key aspects: externalization, objectivation, and internalization. Through these social and cognitive processes, humans create society, culture, and ultimately religion. Looking at religion through Berger’s sociological lens effectively identifies how religions and their various beliefs have come to be accepted in our society.

There have been a number of events to which the argument against the involvement of religion in the affairs of the state has been applied, the debate over the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments in the

I was raised as a Christian and have only attended small, private, and religious schools. Throughout my experiences I have encountered many different ideologies and forms of worship under the umbrella of Christian faith. These different ideologies and the psychology behind worship and faith have always interested me deeply. These fascinations have lead me to a study of the human condition and the ignorance of man. My interests in the facets of human life and how the human race interacts with each other and with nature has applied itself to my academic and intellectual life. Through English I have been forced to reckon with the many injustices of history and how they have not been abolished but morphed into new and subtle forms. I’ve been made to contend with the fact that religion has many times been a perpetrator of injustice or, at the very least, refused to act. I am reminded of Martin Luther King Jr. who, in the “Letters from Birmingham Jail”, responded to the white pastors urging them to stand with him and not allow the church to fade into irrelevancy. As we know, the white pastors abstained from encouraging the non-violent resistance for equal civil rights and Martin Luther King Jr.’s prophecy became reality. The level of arrogance and willful ignorance displayed by the pastors has led me to self-examination. It has also caused me to examine the methods of social change that are most effective.