Abstract
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, facts, and interpretations to propose their opinions.
Should Church and State be Separate?
Alan Wolfe (2002) speaks about many of the implied hypocrisies during the centuries-long debate over separation of church and state. While most people are brought up to question hypocrisy, Wolfe claims that some level of it is necessary to allow for compassion from the audience. “Surely we should want our anti-clericalists to have a touch of belief about them, especially when compared to the truly cynical.” Wolfe (¶ 14, 2002).
In his book, Separation of Church and State, Philip Hamburger called many of the politicians “…opportunistic” however; their type of behavior is often seen throughout our society today. In his article, “Church and State Should be Separate,” Wolfe (2002) uses lawyers as an example;
The history of American jurisprudence is filled with examples of lawyers seeking to build the strongest possible cases for their clients or causes, dropping one argument and employing another if it promises a greater chance of success, even if it seems to contradict the first. (¶ 13).
Throughout his argument, Wolfe also cites the court case, “Everson vs. Board of Education,” which placed separation of church and state into constitutional law in 1947. Prior to this case, the set of rules and ethics, God’s or Man’s, that should guide us, the citizens, had been debated but never determined.
On the other side of the spectrum stands Steve Bonta. Bonta contends that separation of church and state is a historical mistake waiting to happen. He uses examples from the French Revolution, in which they attempted the same ideal--giving the power to ...
... middle of paper ...
...selves. Favoritism of one religion over another would also lead to more prejudice and unethical happenings in everything from school and businesses to career paths and job security. I also believe that when one religion stands above another, there is always a risk of another holocaust, even if on a smaller scale. Any of the above events would completely negate our Constitution and lead to the utter destruction of our foundation. Americans have come to rely on and trust their freedoms, even if they take them for granted from time to time, and while some would be thrilled to have a religious establishment placed in an area of power, the majority would see it as a lie from the get-go that this country stands for freedom, and all trust in the government would falter, leading to either another American Revolution or tyrannical rule.
“Church and State Should be Separate” Alan Wolfe. Books and Culture September/October, 2002. Retrieved January 08, 2005 from the Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center Database.
“Church and State Should not be Separate” Steve Bonta. New American July, 09, 2002; vol. 18, p. 1. Retrieved January 08, 2005 from the Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center Database.
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.
Flax, B. (2011, July 9). The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State. Retrieved from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state/
The modern state seeks its self-preservation above all else, and history reveals that governments are more than willing to exercise their monopoly on force and coercion in order to cement and defend their authority (5-6). Normally, unified social bodies such as the Church seek to counteract the dominance of the state through their public and political influence. However, when the Church simultaneously abdicates its political connections and powers and interiorizes itself within individual Catholics, it frees the state to exercise its will with little backlash: “Once the church has been individualized and eliminated as Christ’s body in the world, only the state is left to impersonate God”
For more than a century, the concept of secularism and its boundaries has been widely disputed by secularists and non-secularists alike. English dictionaries define secularism as simply the separation of church and state, or, the separation of religion and politics. Michael Walzer, a true secularist, believes that this separation is an essential democratic value and ultimately fosters toleration of a plurality of religions (Walzer, p. 620). Wæver, an opponent of secularism, defines secularism as “a doctrine for how society ought to be designed”– that religion and politics ought to be divided in order to ensure religious liberty, as well as religious-free politics. However, he does not deem that such a principle exists (Wæver, p. 210). Based on these different viewpoints, I have established a unique concept of secularism: the principle that religion and politics be kept apart, that the state remains neutral in regard to religion, and that liberty, equality, and fraternity be upheld in an attempt to successfully promote religious toleration and pluralism.
One of the biggest misconceptions of today’s society is that politics is run by pure fact and argument, with no spiritual aspect. However, Amanda Porterfield verifies in her novel Conceived in Doubt that this statement is pretentious and false. Amanda Porterfield takes us back to the time of early government structure and development. This era in the United States is in a stage of constant change and reformation. The United States could even be argued as blind by their religious views, affecting their morals and well-being for the future of the nation. In her novel, Porterfield stresses that the government is in no way free of the church’s principles and deserts the attempt to break the bond.
Flax, Bill. "The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State", July 9, Forbes, 2011 Web. 15 May 2015
I conclude that the role of the church in the state is indispensable to the extent that it produces morally upright leaders. However, it cannot influence public policies by imposing its doctrines on the state or coercing any politician or political entity thereof.
In conclusion, the incorporation of the 14th Amendment in regards to the development of understanding and the provision for protection of civil liberties like freedom of religion has changed throughout the history of the United States. The role government has played continues to grow, for better or worse, and may actually require the Courts to revise its interpretation from which laws are developed. Indeed, the separation of church and state has had its highs and lows. From the case involving the busing of children to parochial schools to another addressing the use of prayer in public schools and all the way to the President of the United States forming faith-based organizations to benefit citizens in need of aid, the government, and more importantly its citizens, will continue to closely monitor the progress and protection of their freedom of religion.
Chapter three of Civil Liberties: Opposing Viewpoints inspired me to research today’s issues of school prayer. To understand how we got to where we are today, I first delved into our countries history of court cases pertaining to rulings on prayer in schools. Lastly, to update my audience on how our lives are being affected today, I directed my efforts toward finding current situations. By analyzing these situations, I gained knowledge for a better understanding of why society needs to be aware of these controversies. I don’t think there should be any form of organized prayer in today’s public schools.
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.
...e, vague topics. The disunity made the Church too unstable to continue possessing political power and so the State became the head of politics, and now we have separation of Church and State, which is renders this time “a secular Western culture” (Powell 6).
...iberties. Ed. Noël Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Government Neutrality Is Not 'Anti-Religion'." Psychology Today (3 Oct. 2011). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
Rieff, Burt. "Conflicting Rights and Religious Liberty: The School-Prayer Controversy in Alabama, 1962-1985." Alabama Review 3(2001):163. eLibrary. Web. 31 Aug. 2011.
Hawley, Helen, and Gary Taylor. "Freedom of religion in America." Contemporary Review 282.1649 (2003): 344+. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
The Myth of the Separation of Church and State retrieved on January 7, 2005 from: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html