Democracy and the Separation of Church and State
Democracy remains imperative to America, as it is the foundation of our government. It provides citizens with an easy way of changing their government, and democracy is fundamental to the selection of our leaders. But the question arises; what is essential to a thriving democracy? One can argue that a strict separation of church and state ensures successful democracy in America. Others may argue the opposite, that instead, blurred separation of church and state ensures successful democracy in America. In order to understand the significance of a strict separation of church and state, it is necessary to understand the opposing views.
Those who argue that an unclear seperation of church and state
…show more content…
Since the “American Revolution created a secular government and a godless Constitution” and Thomas Jefferson coined the term “wall of separation” in regards to the church and state divide, there has been no need to question religions interference in democracy (Grasso “The Religious”). However, there are those who argue that the Founders “launched a Christian nation,” and religion should have a place in our democracy (Grasso “The Religious”). Still, it is necessary to look at all the facts before making such a claim. At least 38.6% of the country holds no religious beliefs, or simply does not care for religion, and approximately 5.9% of the country follows a religion other than Christianity (Wormald “Religious Landscape”). Since such a large percentage of people do not identify as Christian, it is impractical to blur the church and state division, because it is more than likely only one religion will be recognized, and almost half of the country’s voices will not be heard. It is also important to note that when lawmakers speak about “religious liberty” and “religious freedom”, they are usually only talking about Christianity. PBS reports that at least 92% of all lawmakers in the United States identify as Christian (Montanaro “Congress is”). For example, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who is also a former 2016 presidential candidate, wrote on …show more content…
For example, the Supreme Court Case Roe V. Wade sparked much anger from the religious community. The case regards abortion, “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy,” and established a woman’s right to an abortion (Oxford). Abortion is considered “a morally unacceptable choice” to most among the religious community, and if it was up to them, abortion would most likely be illegal, destroying a woman’s right to an abortion (Eijnden “Neonatal Euthanasia”). If it was up to the religions community, making abortion illegal forces women to continue with their pregnancy, even if the mother’s life is in danger, or if the fetus was a product of rape or incest. Another example of attacking personal liberties is the irritation that the Supreme Court Case Obergefell V. Hodges created. Obergefell V. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage across all fifty states, much to the distaste of some in the religious community. Homosexuality is often considered a grave sin, and after the case, many believed that the verdict would “have a potentially chilling effect on religious freedom,” even if it meant limiting the rights and freedoms of others (Russo “Religious Freedom”). The Bible itself condemns homosexual behavior when it states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," further pushing
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
In 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized the place that religion holds in democracy. “Religion, by teaching man his relationship to God, gives the individual a sense of his own dignity and teaches him to respect himself by respecting his neighbor's. Democracy, the practice of self-government, is a covenant among free men to respect the rights and liberties of their fellows. International good faith, a sister of democracy, springs from the will of civilized nations of men to respect the rights and liberties of other nations of men. In a modern civilization, all three—religion, democracy and international good faith—complement and support each other” (Franklin D. Roosevelt: State of the Union message). This statement supported the idea that religion is associated with a well functioning government. However, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education it was stated that, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach” (Hugo Black). This case occurred after Roosevelt’s presidency, and left a significant impact on the American government, as it made clear that religion had no place in the government (Hugo Black). In recent years, a larger disconnect between the church and the American court systems has been created with the nationwide
A popular notion among many religious conservatives is the rejection of what is commonly referred to as the separation between church and state. They maintain the United States was founded by leaders who endorsed Christian principles as the cornerstone of American democracy, and that the First Amendment prohibition against government establishment was not intended to remove religion from public life. As a result, a number of disputes have made their way through to the courts, pitting those ready to defend the wall of separation, against those who would tear it down. Two recent cases have brought this battle to the forefront of political debate. The first involves an Alabama Supreme Court justice, who, in defiance of a Federal judge, fought the removal of a granite display of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state courthouse. Also, a California man has challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in an upcoming Supreme Court case involving student recitation of the pledge of allegiance.
Religion has always been a topic that makes people uncomfortable, it has sparked wars, legal cases and arguments. This is a controversial issue that reigns havoc in many countries and because of this American citizens are afforded religious freedom through the US constitution. The goal of the United States government has never been to make our nation irreligious but to uphold the values of religious freedom.
The First Amendment and Dealing with the Separation of Church and State. Is it unconstitutional for local, state or federal governments to favor one religion over another? another. Then what about the sand? Government can show favoritism toward religion by displaying religious symbols in public places at taxpayer expense, by sponsoring events like Christmas. concerts, caroling, by supporting the teaching of religious ideas, or even by supporting the teaching of creationism in public schools.
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...
...es by merely proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times by having those teachings influence laws. The ‘Religious Right’ is a term used in America to describe right-wing religious (for example: Protestant, Evangelical, and more recently, Christian and Catholic) political factions. While the ‘White Religious Right’ constitutes only 14% of the American population as of 2000, the year of George W. Bush’s first election to the office, this portion of American society believes that separation of church and state is not explicit in the American Constitution and that the United States was ‘founded by Christians as a Christian Nation.’ The Religious Right argues that the Establishment Clause bars the federal government from establishing or sponsoring a state church (e.g. the Church of England), but does not prevent the government from acknowledging religion.
"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
In his 2006 “Call to Renewal Address”, Barack Obama gives his thoughts on the role of religion in democracy through a response to earlier accusations of his un-Christianness during his 2004 Senate race against Alan Keyes. He addresses both his accuser, who suggested that Obama's views disrespect his faith as a Christian, and his liberal supporters, who urged him to ignore these statements because “a literalist reading of the Bible was folly” (2). In his speech, Obama recommends a middle ground between these two views, in which “the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values” (7), as the only way to connect religion and politics in a “pluralistic democracy” (7). This attempt, motivated in part by the role of religion in his own upbringing, is his way to “bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring” to debates in which “faith [is] used as a tool of attack, … to belittle [and] to divide” (8). However, contradictions in his speech prevent his vision from becoming a useful model for religiously-motivated political action. Moreover, the fundamental nature of religion, which he admits “does not allow for compromise” (7), makes such a vision impossible.
Church-state relations in America has been widely discussed and hotly debated. One school of thought holds that the church should be absolutely separated from the state, while another holds that the church plays a moral role in state building and its sanctity, without which the state risks falling apart. In my discussion of the church-state relations, I state that the history of church-state relations has a Constitutional basis. Next, I discuss the two schools of thought in context and how they have shaped contemporary American political thought. Finally, I argue that the two schools of thought have a common ground. This is followed by a summary of my key arguments and a conclusion to my essay.
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.
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.
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...
How many times have you heard the term "separation of church and state"? Some people believe these five words have not been emphasized enough and other people think the government has taken them too far. How could you take that direct quote made by the founding fathers of the United States of America too far? You couldn’t. Unquestionably, Christian beliefs, or any religious beliefs, should not play a role in United States government.
One of the most common questions asked about public prayer is whether or not it is legal