The Necessity of the Complete Separation between Church and State
Our current president, George W. Bush, is known for being religious. He has been quoted saying that “God told [him] to strike at al Qaeda,” and “God want[ed] [him] to run for President.” He has called the war on terrorism a “crusade.” When he was the governor of Texas, he created a state-wide “Jesus Day.” In 2001, he talked of the “bridge between church and state” (“Big List of George W Bush Quotes”). The problem? He is tampering with our nation’s history. He is destroying what the Founding Fathers outlined in the Constitution, and he is the president of the United States—and he’s not the only one who thinks this way. In the last decade, the religious right has gained a foothold in American politics and has been forcing through legislation that, if passed, would slowly destroy the separation of church and state. Despite the First Amendment, the intentions of the Founding Fathers, and the obvious corruption that a merging of government and religion would bring—all of which give very good reasons for a complete separation of church and state—these people still claim that the nation’s government is entwined with religion. First of all, one thing must be made clear: The United States’ government is in no way based upon Christianity. Such a claim betrays an unbearable ignorance of the nation’s history. Yes, the nation is predominantly Christian in its population and has been ever since its creation, but
"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
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.
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.
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
During the 18th and 19th century, or to be more precise, The Great Awakening was a response to the Enlightenment. Against the Enlightenment that is. That being so, it ended up being a major cause of the revolution in the long run. Not only that but the new religious messages that were emerging were increasingly more democratic overall becoming, in the U.S, messages of greater quality. “Old lights” and “New lights” sprung up and began disagreeing with each other. The effects of the Great Awakening caused religion to have an infringing position on the states. Thus, the people thought it best if the two ideals (Religion and the State) were separate from one another so people aren’t governed by other people’s feelings on religion.
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
The separation of the church and state is one of the fundamental principles of U.S. government and law and with it, comes a deep history to back it up. It began many years prior to the establishment of the first public educational institution. Towards the end of the 1700s, many different religious groups began to flourish which made it impossible for them all to be under the control of the states. This is where the
The United States of America has the most diverse religious population in the world. In places like Iraq, Syria, Israel, Afghanistan, Yemen, and other countries too numerous to mention, countless lives are lost over religious differences. In America, a Protestant can live happily next door to a Jew, who might live across the street from a Muslim, or a Catholic, or a Sikh, or even a Humanist! This is in no small way attributed to the fact that the US Constitution’s First Amendment includes what is known as the establishment clause, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” effectively separating affairs of religious institutions from secular,
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.
There has been much debate on whether or not the United States has been doing the right thing by keeping church and state as separate entities rather than keeping them entwined as had been the standard for centuries prior to the country’s founding. The list of influences this law could affect is substantial, ranging from the workplace to school functions. Even the way people decorate their offices and houses has come into question from time to time. However, remarkably, every person has a different style of argument and a different way of looking at the available facts. I intend to compare two very different argument styles on both sides of this issue, and how two capable writers use completely different methods of research,
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.
Without a God how do we know what is right from wrong. What is good or bad? The Ten Commandments tell us what is right or wrong and good or bad, but the constitution says the church has to be separate. If there is no God in our government we cannot have our Ten Commandments, how do we know what is right or wrong? The current opinion of courts is that the First Amendment bans religion in our government to protect the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from the government. The first amendment does not say church and state should be separate since our founders understood if church and state were completely separate, our government would fall apart.
Religious freedom remains a highly-debated issue in the United States. Religion has the power to completely dictate someone’s life and their decisions because it is often the most or one of the most important parts of a person’s life. I am a Christian, and because of this, my life revolves around my God, and the decisions I make in my life reflect what I learn from the Bible. For others, religion is merely a self-identifier that doesn’t play a huge role besides otherwise. The extent to which a people believe or practice their religion is irrelevant when it comes to the Constitution. On 4 May 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, declaring that day a National Day of Prayer. He did this again on September 3rd of the same year as a comfort for the victims of Hurricane Harvey. The National Day of Prayer, having been debated for many years since its introduction, can be analyzed with the First Amendment, containing a Wall of Separation and the free exercise clause to establish that it should be constitutional.