Separation Of Church And State In The United States

There has been much controversy on the relationship between Church and State in the United States. Many deem that the separation of Church and State is necessary in order to establish a well-developed and just government, however others disagree that Church and State are conjoined; it is impossible to implicate one and not the other. For example in the book Politics and Religion in the United States, Michael and Julia Colbert discuss state “although religion and politics are not the same their realms overlap. This is especially true with regard with values, {as well as] concern power over the lives of people... However, particular activist groups across the U.S., including Gay and Lesbian Marriage Alliance and the NARAL Pro- Choice America

argue why the wall between politics and religion should not only stand but also strengthen.
There should be no separation of religion and politics; however there should be a limit on how much one affects the other.

There must be a defining line where religious beliefs and political views are deemed discordant and separated by topic, not by an entirety. In other words, there should not be a full separation of Church and State, but rather an understanding of when politics should and can be affected by religious beliefs. The separation of Church and State in America is an evolving dispute and is constantly redefining itself. We have come to the point where we are less inclined to criticize individuals that are different and more inclined to embrace each other’s eccentricities in most cases. However, religion has always been a sensitive topic in the United States. Separation of Church and State functioned as a primary concern even during Thomas Jefferson’s Presidency and remains current today. Today the headlines focus on President George W. Bush and his proposal to use faith- based organizations to provide social services to the public. Issues regarding the separation of Church and State frequently resurface. The first time this issue was made known to American citizens was when the Supreme Court removed prayer from the public school system (Engle v. Vitale 1962). Last year, the Supreme Court made another decision in regards to this same concern, but with a slight

twist.
In the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, it states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This statement maintains the establishment of religious freedoms provided to Americans by the founding leaders who endorsed Christian principles as the cornerstone of American democracy. However, our founding fathers never intended the First Amendment prohibition to detach religion from political life. As a result, a number of disputes have been brought to court involving those ready to defend the wall of separation and those who seek to tear it down. Two recent cases have brought this controversy 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. In addition, 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.
After deconstructing the words in the Establishment Clause, the most significant adjective “an,” tells us that the framers of the Constitution wanted to restrain Congress from installing any one religion as the official religion of the state.

Those words say nothing about religion informing Congress or society on policy, education, or progress. I maintain that the first amendment’s establishment clause regarding religion was to protect citizens’ free exercise of religion from state interests and not to protect state interests from religion. So while the idea of separation between Church and State is an aged argument, it is also radically inaccurate and a misinterpretation of the first amendment. In fact, the assumed existence and enactment of such a radical ideal has caused violation of the ninth amendment

a...
However, according to ______ the only way to truly understand the factors of separating Church and State we must first understand the definition of the two terms “religion” and “politics”. “Religion is an integrated system of beliefs, lifestyles, ritual activities, and institutions by which people give meaning to (or find meaning in) their lives by orienting themselves to what they take to be holy, sacred, or of ultimate values.” Politics, on the other side of the spectrum, is defined as “the workings of government, the impact of governments on people, the ways in which governments operate, and the processes by which governmental leaders attain and retain authority.” Religious beliefs mainly developed from sacred writings and stories, were passed along by generations, and grew into a faith practiced by many, giving reasoning and explanations to creation and purpose. However it can only thrive through four parts, beliefs, lifestyles, rituals, and social organizations and provides a sense of moral standard to society.” Politics, however, is driven by power.
In book ....... by ...... he states that it is impossible to separate Church and State mainly because the very factors that we use to determine political standpoints are religious based." For example, when we are participating in political elections, we may look at presidential and senatorial candidates mostly on their religious views. One good example of this is the presidential election between President Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012. ...... percent of Americans stood in agreement for Mitt Romney based on his views of abortion and legalization of gay marriage and vice versa. It is habitual of Americans to look toward public leader swho appeal better to individual interests than those that gear toward betterment of the community as a whole.
After deconstructing the words in the Establishment Clause, the most significant adjective “an,” tells us that the framers of the Constitution wanted to restrain Congress from installing any one religion as the official religion of the state. Those immortal words say nothing about religion informing Congress or society on policy, education, or progress. I maintain that the first amendment’s establishment clause regarding religion was to protect citizens’ free exercise of religion from state interests and not to protect state interests from religion. So while the idea of separation between Church and State is an aged argument, it is also radically inaccurate and a misinterpretation of the first amendment. In fact, the assumed existence and enactment of such a radical ideal has caused violation of the ninth amendment a...
(Santa Fe ISD v. Doe) 2000 school prayer at football games