Separation Of Church And State

"Prayer has been banished from schools and the ACLU rampages to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Moreover, “Separation of Church and State” is nowhere found in the Constitution or any other founding legislation. Our forefathers would never countenance the restrictions on religion exacted today." -- Bill Flax, Forbes, 2011

Our society lacks a moral compass today and we need to find a way to return to our country 's founding values. Is religion the answer? some may think so others may say keep church and state separate. The original statement was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists Association. In his letter he says “American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State” (Jefferson 1802). After this letter was written it went unnoticed or used until the mid 1800’s when a group petitioned Congress to remove Christian principles and values from government. They claimed that there needed to be a “separation of church and state”. Again it was unused officially until 1947 when in the case of Everson verses the board of education the court wanted to build the wall high and impregnable. That wall was never supposed to be as it is now referred to. We need to have the religious freedoms free from government control. How can a private petition be taken out of text and used as a guide for our federal court? Our forefathers were influenced by important values when establishing this country. Also, there were a lot of other influences in our founders thought processes; own life experiences, education, and even self gratification. Just reading The Declaration of Independence you can see where their

In today’s society, the separation of church and state is a fundamentally important aspect of our government. Most any citizen would agree that the government should operate based on the law and the constitution, not on the individual 's religious beliefs, yet when the issue is Abortion, that stance is flipped. The debate over abortion rages on despite the supreme court giving women the right to abortion in 1973 with the ruling of Roe v Wade. Looking at both sides objectively, the pro-choice arguments lineup with facts, while the pro-life arguments are either supported by facts yet purposefully misinterpreted, or simply not factual at all. State governments pass laws that regulate abortions and abortion centers all in the attempt to close these centers down and stop women from getting abortions at all, including situations of rape or incest. Just as the government in Brave New World controls the bodies of women by keeping them on contraceptives and controlling their bodily functions through medication, the American government seeks the same control over what women do and don’t do with their body by denying them abortions and birth control.

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe (SFISD V. Doe) case, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented, “It [the ruling] bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life” (“United”). Separating religion and state has always been a matter of concern for the United States, as shown by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of our constitution. Although there have been many cases revolving around the relationship between the church and the state, SFISD V. Doe is among the most notable. By examining the background, reflecting on the decision, and analyzing the impact of the SFISD V. Doe case,

Summary: The division between church and state is a gray line that is often crossed and argued about. For example, Gwen Wilde, the author, argues that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance requires people who do not believe in God to recite something they do not necessarily believe in. If a person chose not to say the full Pledge, including to utter the words “under God” they run the risk of being called unpatriotic. The author continually argues that the words “under God” add a religious doctrine that not all Americans believe in.

When discussing the intertwining of church and state; soul liberty and freedom from religious belief, we must recognize that freedom and faith were at one point complementary ideas. Faith was once the foundation for freedom and vice versa. The Declaration of Independence clearly states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights." With these words from the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers set up their vision of what this country would come to be. Among those rights, which are deemed “inalienable”, is the right of religious liberty. (Neumann, 1990: p. 241)

In today’s society, the separation of church and state is a fundamentally important aspect of our government. Most any citizen would agree that the government should operate based on the law and the constitution, not on the individual 's religious beliefs, yet when the issue is Abortion, that stance is flipped. The debate over abortion rages on despite the supreme court giving women the right to abortion in 1973 with the ruling of Roe v Wade. Looking at both sides objectively, the pro-choice arguments line up with facts, while the pro-life arguments are supported by facts yet purposefully misinterpreted, or simply not factual at all. State governments pass laws that regulate abortions and abortion centers all in the attempt to

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

History shows a pattern of change in relation to religious involvement of governmental affairs. As religion becomes less a part of American life, the court develops new laws to accommodate our new society. Look to the communities we live in presently and ask yourself if the American people are facing oppression of religious freedom, a freedom listed in our Constitution under the First Amendment. This spirals into an abyss of politics. Is same-sex marriage a personal matter or a public one? Is the Republican Party fair in opting to end abortion? Should a woman have contraceptive included in her health insurance plan despite the religious views of her employer? This is one of the areas in which

Even when the Constitution establishes a separation between church and state, traces of religion can still be found in public and government environments, such as the Pledge of Allegiance containing the words ‘under God’, American currency having ‘In God we trust’ and other such events and places. Consequently, this prevalence of Christian ideology violates all Americans’ first amendment right to freedom of and from religion and has a negative impact all citizens as it conflicts with their individual beliefs, religious or not.

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 separation of church and state is an ongoing debate that effects everyone, even if you are not aware of it. There are many arguments to this debate, and both sides are heavily supported. I will be analyzing two sources that support the separation of church and state but used two different forms of rhetoric to support the separation.

Separation of church and state is a defined as, the understanding of the intent, and function of the Establishment Clause, and Free Exercise Clause. The Combination of church and state has been a topic that, many generations have struggled with for centuries. The first amendment of the constitution states that “Congress shall make no law about our religious beliefs, or prohibiting our free exercise of religion” If we put our faith in the constitution to define the founding father’s standpoint of separation of church and state, then we have definitely misinterpreted their stance on religion. Many people believe the reference to separation of church and state is in the original constitution, but the truth is, the references, often conceptualized and misinterpreted as intertwining with our religious freedom, but that is not the truth.

Alan Wolfe makes his opinion clear that church and state were separated in 1947 by ruling of the Supreme Court in the Everson trial, and it should remain that way to protect the rights of all citizens. His belief is that integrating the two powers would ultimately lead to further corruption of the government. He also states that keeping church and state together would lead to favoritism of one religion over another, undermining the very ideals of “Freedom of Religion.” Steve Bonta claims that the modern interpretation of documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, has been perverted from the actual meanings and intentions of our founders. His belief is that the first amendment, on Congress “…making no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” was not meant to keep a wall between Church and state (¶ 12), but rather to protect the Church from being separated. Bonta believes that while the United States does not have an official, national religion (such as Episcopalian in England), it was founded on Christian values and morals, which have been entwined throughout our earliest documents and laws, making it impossible and impractical to separate.

America wastes a lot of time trying to create a democracy completely absent of the moral expectations that our ancestors have put into place. Our founding fathers’ dream of establishing a country in which all people would be accepted has begun to fall. In our attempt to rid our country of a democracy contaminated with any belief in a supreme power, we have rid ourselves of many of our values and morals. Perhaps it is impossible for religion to dominate our political country, but we have misinterpreted the original intent of “separation of church and state” and taken this concept too far.