Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental rights that Americans possess. Freedom religion is not only mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but it is included in the very first of these rights. The founding fathers recognized this as very important to the American people because many colonists had come to the New World to escape religious persecution in Europe. In America, the attitude is moving more from an attitude of acceptance to one of mere tolerance and even disdain in some cases. The public and some leaders are denying many their constitutionally guaranteed right to free exercise of religion. The military is one arena where these rights are being denied quite often. The American military is becoming increasingly hostile toward expression of religious beliefs, especially Christianity. The hostilities continue even though the Constitution protects freedom of expression, and the courts have reaffirmed that servicemen and women may freely express their religious beliefs without fear of adverse effects on their careers.
Much of the controversy over religious freedom in the military rests in the question of whether or not allowing religion in the military is an "establishment" of religion which violates the First Amendment. The official stance of the DoD on religion in the military is "the DoD places a high value on the rights of members of the Military Services to observe the tenets of their respective religions or to observe no religion at all" (Dominguez 2). It also states that worship practices, holy days, and other religious observances "will be accommodated to the extent possible consistent with mission accomplishment" (Dominguez 8). The Supreme Court ruled in Marsh v. Chambers that prayer opening sessions in congress ...
... middle of paper ...
...claims he was fired for religious views on gays. Air Force Times. Gannett. 16 August 2013. Web. 8 April 2013. .
The Holy Bible, New King James Version (NKJV). Nashville: Thomas Nelson, inc., 1982. Print.
Prayer and Religion in the Military. ACLJ. American Center for Law and Justice. n.d. Web. 8 April 2014. .
Update on Developing Situation at U.S. Air Force Academy. Liberty Institute. Liberty Institute. 13 March 2014. Web. 3 May 2014. < http://blog.libertyinstitute.org/2014/03>.
U.S. Air Force Awards Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk Prestigious Decoration Despite Religious Discrimination Claim. Liberty Institute. Liberty Institute. 18 February 2014. Web. 3 May 2014. .
In 1971 in Mobile County Alabama the School Board created a state statute that set aside time at the beginning of each day for silent ’meditation’ (statute 6-1-20), and in 1981 they added another statute 16-1-20.1 which set aside a minute for ‘silent prayer’ as well. In addition to these, in 1982 the Mobile County School Board enacted statute 16-1-20.2, which specified a prayer that teachers could lead ‘willing’ students in “From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the State of Alabama, recognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God… “ (Jaffree By and Through Jaffree v. James). Ishmael Jaffree was the father of three students, Jamael Aakki Jaffree, Makeba Green, and Chioke Saleem Jaffree, who attended a school in Mobile County Alabama. Jaffree complained that his children had been pressured into participating in religious activities by their teachers and their peers, and that he had requested that these activities stopped. When the school did nothing about Jaffree’s complaints he filed an official complaint with the Mobile County School Board through the United States District Courts. The original complaint never mentioned the three state statutes that involved school prayer. However, on June 4, 1982 Jaffree changed his complaint. He now wanted to challenge the constitutionality of statutes 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, and motioned for a preliminary injunction. The argument against these state laws was that they were an infringement of the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that Congr...
BBC. "Christianity and the ethics of war." BBC - Religion. N.p., 3 Aug. 2009. Web. 14 Jan. 2012. .
1. In the First Amendment, the clause that states “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” is based on the Establishment Clauses that is incorporated in the amendment. This clauses prohibits the government to establish a state religion and then enforce it on its citizens to believe it. Without this clause, the government can force participation in this chosen religion, and then punish anyone who does not obey to the faith chosen. This clause was in issue in a court case mentioned in Gaustad’s reading “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land”. March v. Chambers was a court case that involved the establishment clause. Chambers was a member of the Nebraska state legislature who began each session with prayer by a chaplain who was being paid the state. The case stated that this violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. However, the court stated that the establishment clause was not breached by the prayer, but was violated because of the fact that the chaplain was being paid from public funds.
It has been suggested that there is currently a culture war taking place in the United States. Depending on who you listen to, you will get vastly different descriptions of the two sides. Some will insist that the fight is between the upholders of strong Christian, moral values and godless, secular-minded, moral relativists. Others will tell you that defenders of religious freedom and rational thought are battling religious fundamentalists who wish to impose their radically conservative views on the whole of the American populace. Regardless of which way you view the debate, the entire so-called “culture war” boils down to a basic disagreement over the place of religion in public life. In light of President Bush’s recent nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, I believe it is prudent to have a thorough discussion of the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state, because how the Supreme Court rules on issues related to this principle in the future will have a profound impact on how we define ourselves as a country. In order to conduct a thorough inquiry into this debate, I believe it is necessary to start at the beginning and attempt to discern how our founding fathers viewed religion’s place in public life, and how they relayed this view in the First Amendment. After I have done this, I will try to apply some of the principles I have gathered to current hot-button social issues which are likely to come before the Supreme Court in the not too distant future.
Owens, Mackubin Thomas. “The Case Against Gays in the Military.” Wall Street Journal. 03 Feb 2010: A. 17. SIRS Researcher. Web. 29 Mar 2011.
1. The Philippine Military Academy, as a premiere military institution in the Southeast Asia, bears the task of producing quality military officers and efficient leaders for the Philippine government. As such, the recruitment of cadets for the academy is no simple endeavour. Cadet applicants are screened and subjected to several recruitment requirements to determine their suitability for the academy. More often they are referred to as the “cream of the crop.”
Hawley, Helen, and Gary Taylor. "Freedom of religion in America." Contemporary Review 282.1649 (2003): 344+. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
America has been built on freedom throughout the years. Freedom to speak, freedom to choose, freedom to worship, and freedom to do just about anything you want within that of the law. America’s law has been designed to protect and preserve these freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It assures citizens that the federal government shall not restrict freedom of worship. It specifically prohibits Congress from establishing an official, government supported church. Under The First Amendment, the federal government cannot require citizens to pay taxes to support a certain church, nor can people be prohibited from worshipping in any way they see fit. However, if a certain religion recommends a practice that is contrary to public morals, such as polygamy, Congress may prohibit such a practice (Weidner, Daniel, 2002). The people of the United States also have the right to assemble peaceably under the First Amendment. The only restriction comes from the word peaceably. Assembly may not be prevented, as long as the proper authorities have reasonable assurance that the meeting will be peaceful (Weidner, Daniel, 2002).
The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. There are several ways to apply this to the issue of prayer in school. Arguments can be made for both groups of people who are for and against prayer in school. What does it all boil down to? Freedom of religion still applies, just do not organize or endorse it in our schools.
The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (University, n.d.). During the time the Establishment Clause was founded it 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” (UMKC, n.d.). The separation of church and state would theoretically have no religious bearing on the government or the Supreme Court when making decisions. Christianity was the main religion that the federal government was supporting in general. The establishment Clause prevented the Federal Government from one national religion being supported over another religion through the objection of the separation of church and state.
This paper discusses how the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the United States government interact to allow each individual in a public school freedom to pray while not endorsing any religion.
In our current society it is established that faith is equated with a type of blind acceptance of all that the church or institution stands for. Having faith is still viewed as a wholesome characteristic, though it is more and more becoming correlated with negative connotation that is commonly attached to a thoughtless, dogmatic approach an absolute obedience of all tenets regardless of conscious thoughts and appeals. In a similar regard, patriotism has become an exemplar of modern faith because it calls for unchallenged compliance with both the laws of the government and their unjustified actions, especially during times of war. Primarily this absolute-authority mindset was instilled within the general population because of the principle of sovereign immunity that was instituted long before the United States was even founded. While widely accepted during the beginning of this country, landmark atrocities initiated by the government, regardless of rationale, emphasized this question of immunity to the people and the court system, eventually leading to revolutionary judgments against the government. Before this, especially during the Cold War, the government fought extensively to keep a jaded population through propaganda. When we view the history of both religion and government, the ideals behind true obedience are strongest when they allow for active engagement on behalf of the citizens, permitting them to question deeply and ultimately follow their consciences. One individual, who had the tragic benefit of being involved with an example of the landmark atrocities the government inflicted, came to the realization that, no matter what obstacles one faces, obedience...
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances” (United States Constitution).
It is believed that America was a country founded on religious principles, however as the country aged, the concept of separation of church and state was created. This notion was meant to prevent religious ideas and practices from infiltrating the government. Although many people today accept separation of church and state as normal and effective since its implementation, the truth is the U.S. government has still had an influence in society’s perception of religion. In the nation’s history, the Government has controlled and encouraged certain religious beliefs in many explicit, yet subtle, ways. For example, the Government has had a large hand in monitoring religious beliefs in the army; the effects of this can be seen in the case of the four chaplains stamp. In addition, during the consensus era, the U.S. felt pressured by the circumstances in other countries to encourage good morals in the form of religion. Furthermore, the government manipulated religion to create unity within the country and to instil nationalism into Americans. Although the nation’s government claims to be independent from religion, America’s history illustrates how the government has used religion to shape the country.
In summary, my Air Force story highlights my journey to becoming an officer in the USAF. It takes into account my Puerto Rican heritage and values and advocates the benefits of maintaining a diverse workforce. My role as a Force Support officer has placed me in situations and enabled the experiences which have shaped my understanding of the profession of arms and better developed me as a leader. Lastly, my contributions to the Air Force mission, at home station or in the area of operations (AOR), have facilitated Airmen at all levels (Tactical, Operational, Strategic) within our Air Force and enabled them to make informed decisions affecting their careers and quality of life.