The Impact Of Religion On Public Life

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.

What is the role of a religious ethic in public policy today? Should a religious ethic and/or theistic

The fight for religious freedom in America is tough for people who do not participate in the religion known as Christianity. Since America is a large and culturally diverse land, the United States of America’s government has to be religiously tolerant to every belief system. Throughout America's lifespan, the subject matter “Freedom of Religion” has increasingly gained attention from the American Act. Thecitizens. In order to protect the religious liberties of American citizens the government has put into place a free exercise clause in the year of 1878, this allowed American citizens to practice religion freely in America. However, many issues have risen and promoted the creation of America's Religious Freedom Act.The largest issue surrounding religious freedom in

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.

Indeed, the conviction of religion gives humans the ability to stand against anyone and anything thus making religious groups a force to reckon. Religion is a symbol that acts to “establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivation in men formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that they seem uniquely realistic.” Examples of this influence include the Islamic movement, the strong influence the Pope has on the Catholic movement, and the impact the Pentecostal movement had on the US government. The worldview contributes to the aspects of living, which include lifestyle, customs, thoughts, philosophies, beliefs, and culture. These aspects seem to change with different generations causing even greater conflict amongst interest groups in policymaking. Indeed, individuals in opposite factions or groups may agree based on facts but sharply differ on conclusions simply because of their different worldviews. A classic case of the worldviews influence is gay

The ability for religious people to exercise their religion in opinion and practice has been a sacred right held up since the beginning of the United States. What happens when one’s religious practices conflicts with public values? This question was integral to the Supreme Court and its rulings in the cases of Bob Jones University v. United States and Church of the Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah. In Bob Jones, the university’s tax exempt status was revoked because the university’s religious beliefs were contrary to the public values of racial equality. In Lukumi Babalu, the religious beliefs of the Santeria Church in Florida about animal sacrifices were in conflict with the public values of the community. Bob Jones University lost their religious

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

Government-appointed officials can face controversy throughout their careers concerning their religious liberties. In this country, there are different points of view on how constitutional rights, specifically First Amendment right, should play into their jobs. While these officials still have basic rights as citizens, they are restricted within their duties, especially in the cases of completing public services for individual citizens. In his article “12 Rules for Mixing Religion and Politics”, Peter Montgomery stated, “As individuals, public officials and public employees enjoy the same religious liberty protections as all Americans… However, a public official has no right to cite religious beliefs as a reason for failing to uphold the duties of their office or for discriminating against some constituents….” Considering this, public officials are free to express

This reading presents questions around what role the law has, or should have, in defining religion. In the case of Sasnett v Sullivan, it is shown that in the legal setting, people feel as though they need to have a set definition of religion and its prescribed practices. This idea is significant, as we need to ask whether it is right for the law to have any part in determining religion, or whether it should be up to individuals.

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

Rock of Ages and a Hard Space (2003) presents the topic of how society regulates religion. The issue consisted on whether the state can determine which studies they can provide funding

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.

Morals are norms of behaviour that the society acknowledges. Religion sets rules and customs for its followers. These religious rules influence the legislative system. If religion plays a role in government policies, it would also influence laws. For example, religious beliefs and morals influence abortion laws in many parts of the world. It is still looked upon as morally wrong on the basis of religious ideas to undergo an abortion procedure. Phillip Montague points that “legal and political debate and decision making should be governed by standard criteria for assessing reasons and reasoning, and when religious considerations fail to satisfy such criteria, they should not be allowed to influence matters of law and public policy” (Montague 17). He further states that these matters consist of abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia along with numerous subjects of social justice such as welfare policies. Montague claims that in comparison with secular reasons, “religious reasons fail by a wide margin to deal adequately with the complexity of such issues” (Montague 17). For instance, a person who argues that homosexuality is morally wrong for the reason that it opposes the divine law would be referring to religious grounds to support his argument and not secular. Individuals should not be arguing for restrictive laws or policies if they do not have secular grounds to support them. They should only put across views that are

We need to pay close attention to the effects of secularism: confining the role of religion to the private domain of the individual and creating a dichotomy between "religious" and "worldly," between "private" and "public." It denies religion and its mediating institutions any public function and influence in shaping matters of public policy.