Decicco 1 In 1789, the First Amendment established that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” This meant the Federal and State Governments could not be partial or show support for any certain denomination or religious organization. However, throughout the history of the United States the controversial question over the relationship between church and state has always been called into question in establishing a one religion government. The main focus of the inquiry is to decide whether to keep the establishment clause or to tear it down and move towards a theocratic system. One side of the debate is the group against the separation of Church and State, who believe that if America was a more religious nation that it would become more moral as well as bring everyone in agreement with national decision making. Therefore the belief is that the United State would become more unified in an already corrupt system. On the other hand, the side for separation argues that the distance between established religion and national government is inherently necessary to keep maintain: religious tolerance, prevent biases, and prejudices, along with any sort of religious freedom in country that has thousands of different organized religions.
With careful consideration of these arguments, the separation of church and state is not only favorable to the American society but also essential to have a functional governmental democracy. For hundreds of years the Federal Government has had separation between organized religion and government functions which, has shown to best protect the religious freedom of the American people and protect the rights established in the constitution. Therefore, the current establishment of se...
... middle of paper ...
...nderstood. However, throughout the course of American history activists have tried to sway the idea that joint church and state is not only beneficial, but mandatory for growth in American moral culture. While changing the government may change the sense of leadership, redistricting laws to benefit one specified religious group is contrary to the idea of a democratic system where each person has a chance to be heard and live in equality. The existing stance separation of church and state is an obligation that the American government and people, must fight to uphold in order to insure that the rights of the American population are not infringed upon. The founding fathers fought and died for the ideas of a country that embodied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and it would be intolerable to try and put a stop to a system that embodies these core ideas.
When it came down to the government during the convention of May 1776, instead of protecting our rights they had passed them down causing us to be under common law. If one had denied the Christian faith and went against everything it believed in, such as, “there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military,” (Jefferson 176). This is what most people had thought about if you did not follow their religion. Thomas Jefferson believed that the wall between church and state should be very high in order to keep out and prevent hostile situations. Using an example from today’s news, many people get uncomfortable in the United Stated with the Muslim religion because of the previous horrific events that led to many cruel deaths in our history. By this, the way that we look at these people is forever changed because of the incidents and who knows if we will ever not be hostile with one another because of it. If church and state hadn’t been separated we may have not become a true democracy from what our developing country was seeming to lead towards. More people would not be as accepting of each other, and not that they are still not today, but I feel as if it may
The Protestants who emigrated to America knew from experience of the negative effect the government had on religion when the two were operating together. With the mindset of creating a new perfect holy land, they decided to make sure both church and state worked separately. While Puritans still did everything they could to enforce their beliefs in New England, including exiling those who did not attend church regularly, the core idea of separation of church and state was in the minds of the people. In order to have a country that values the freedom of religion, the church has to be out of any government policy. Any laws that are created around a single church’s faith, even if the majority of the population believes in them, threaten the freedoms of all other denominations. Ame...
In the 2011 article ‘The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State’ by Bill Flax, “Faith is no civil contract, but a personal matter not to be profaned by politics.” These are the exact intentions of the US Constitution and the federal government. The goal is to allow citizens religious freedom that is uninhibited by federal regulation. This essay describes the fundamental reasons why faith groups and institutions should not be allowed to form political parties. This will be done by defining what religion is and how it applies to moral living. Second, this essay will cover the US Constitution and why it also defines moral living. Finally it will define why religion and government in the United States do not belong together. This essay is designed to only examine the US government.
...urch and State may be an unattainable goal. But as long as the Church and State have anything to do with one another, the struggle will continue.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States establishes religious freedom, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Against the Constitutional background, Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father, wrote a Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. The Bill was passed in the Virginia General Assembly in 1777. However, Jefferson thought that it was not enough to have a Constitutional provision that debars Congress from establishing a religion for all; it was equally important to separate the Church from the state to allow Religious Freedom, so that each and every one will practice their religions freely without government restrictions. Thus, he opposed the interference of the state in religious practices. Secondly, Jefferson argued that if the state was allowed to interfere with the affairs of the church it will give the government the power to persecute those who oppose its policies. The man, whose ideas and ideals have been shaped by experience and practice,...
The strongest phrase in Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,…” goes to the heart of American strength. It provides the foundation upon which this nation’s strength and resolve is built. It is the groundwork laid to allow American citizens to be who they are without government interference and that freedom allows the citizens to learn and grow from each other, building the foundation with the strength of cultural and religious diversity. America was built on this foundation and it is instilled in the heart of every proud American citizen. The content of this single letter and the resultant mirrored text within the United States Constitution has not only defined the way American society functions, but has lead to the growth of the country’s diversity and power in the world as a whole. The effect of separation of church and state in the United States evolved through hard won struggles and battles, resulting in great diversity among ...
The Establishment Clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment clearly reflects the Founding Father’s attempt to avoid the British practice of an intertwined state and church. It is evident that this clause was put into place to avoid government entanglement with religious affiliations. Having spent the majority of my life reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at school, I never realized the government’s failure to comply with the Establishment Clause and ultimately defy the constitution. Having read both sides of the argument, I found Laycock’s assertions to be particularly convincing while Sekulow’s claims were less compelling.
To open this discussion, I would like to start with the civil liberty of freedom of religion. This liberty was identified in my original Constitution essay through the mentioning of the separation of church and state clause. The reason for my including of this liberty, and my stressing of its importance, is that I feel that the government interprets this liberty in a one sided fashion because of the incorrect interpretation of the already in place separation of church and state clause. I also include it because I believe that recently the attacks upon religion have metastasized and tha...
The separation of church and state has been a long debated topic in the history of America. Although founded upon Christian ideals, the framers of the Constitution explicitly outlined the government to function secularly, in what is commonly referred to as the “Establishment Clause”. When interpreting the Constitution in regards to religion, there are two primary philosophies. The first philosophy this paper will explore will be referred to as Positive Toleration. In general, the idea of positive toleration creates an environment that is encouraging of all religions. The second philosophy, which will be referred to as the “Wall of Separation,” encourages government freedom from religion. Although historically these two philosophies have jockey back and forth in public popularity, as America moves into the future, the Wall of Separation philosophy will take a strong-hold and will set the course for how the Establishment Clause will affect local government, schools, and private religious practice.
With sounds of youthful laughter, conversations about the students’ weekends, and the shuffling of college ruled paper; students file into their classrooms and find their seats on a typical Monday morning. As the announcements travel throughout the school’s intercoms, the usual “Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance” becomes no longer usual but rather puzzling to some students. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.” Confusion passes through some of the student’s minds. With the reoccurrence of “God” in the backdrop of American life, the relationship between church and state has become of little to no matter for American citizens just as it has with American students. While congress makes no law respecting an establishment of religion, the term “freedom of religion” presents itself to no longer be the definition of “free”, while also having its effects on debates today. According to Burt Rieff, in Conflicting Rights and Religious Liberty, “Parents, school officials, politicians, and religious leaders entered the battle over defining the relationship between church and state, transforming constitutional issues into political, religious, and cultural debates” (Rieff). Throughout the 20th century, many have forgotten the meaning of religion and what its effects are on the people of today. With the nonconformist society in today’s culture, religion has placed itself in a category of insignificance. With the many controversies of the world, religion is at a stand still, and is proven to not be as important as it was in the past. Though the United States government is based on separation of church and state, the gover...
In his brief response, President Jefferson sympathized with the Baptists in their opposition to the state of Connecticut’s established religion. The question of this assignment is “What do you think the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution thought about the separation of church and state or about the separation of God from government?” While devoutly committed to religious liberty He deeply opposed established churches as existed in Massachusetts and Connecticut, but recognized that, as President, he had to respect them. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," that expressed his reverence for the First Amendment’s “wall of separation between Church & State” at the federal level. This became the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state." President Jefferson put much thought and intense scrutiny into the letter, and consulted New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message that it was not the place of the Congress or of the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued an establishment of religion. The now well-known the phrase "wall of separation between church and state,” lay
December 15, 1791 the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, guaranteeing that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding (University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2011). Prefacing the institution of the Establishment Clause, society was becoming increasingly concerned that the government was dictating to the people which type of religion they should favor. The tables turned back in forth either favoring Catholicism or Protestantism. Tax dollars were being used to support whatever was being called the state church. During the time that Pierce v. Society of Sisters was being heard, people were becoming increasingly tired of the punishment, imprisonment and increased taxation that was occurring for not conforming to the prevailing religion.
The Myth of the Separation of Church and State retrieved on January 7, 2005 from: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
Madison said “In God We Trust” (Allen, Brooke 2005) he never said in our government we trust. Why is it that after adopting those words to our money society wants to forget them? After all, we did believe God was the reason we came to the United States. Overall, why separate the church from the state? The government should separate the church from state, because it is safer, the bible says to, and it would be unconstitutional if we did not have this separation.
...ernment that attempts to serve both civil and religious liberties equally sets itself up for a false mission. History has proven that the two do not exist in harmony but can prevail separately. Both are ideas expressed by Jefferson, Madison and other great thinkers then and now. Though the Constitution may seem godless, its lack of religion assures the protection of church rights and vice versa. The separation of church and state is equally beneficial to both parties.