More handpicked essays just for you.
Argument for separation of church and state
Argument for separation of church and state
Argument for separation of church and state
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
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 general court was set on a path to separating the beliefs of the church and the government. Luckily, years later a law would be passed in the Constitution that separates church and state.
I like that Moore is not hesitant to express thoughtful criticisms about the pretensions of the church and the undemocratic ways that Protestants have sometimes attempted to dominate American society. His commentary stimulates constructive discussions about what should and should not be the proper role of Christianity, especially Protestantism, in a religiously pluralistic culture that has constitutional guarantees for religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
The Supreme Court case in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow result in a unanimous ruling that the phrase “under God” may remain in the Pledge of Allegiance as narrated in public school classrooms. The court made the decision because the atheist father did not have grounds to sue the school district on behalf of his daughter. While the ruling was made on the Flag Day, it did not meet the clear endorsement of the constitutionality of the pledge as sought by President Bush and leaders of Republican and Democratic Parties in Congress. Notably, the eight judges who participated in the case had voted to turn over a federal appeals court decision in 2003 that would have prohibited the use of the phrase in public schools as an infringement of the constitutional outlaw on state-sponsored religion. A majority of these justices i.e. five made that ruling on procedural grounds in which Michael A. Newdow, the atheist, did not have legal reasons to sue the school district (Lane, 2004).
The foundation upon which all of his principles are laid was that our basic law originated in God; however, Skousen’s argument for this fundamental premise is futile. He fruitlessly quoted individuals that will be recognized as authorities to form a cogent argument; nevertheless, he failed in proving his view that the American Constitution is founded solely upon Biblical law. Although emphasized frequently throughout the book, the Constitution never implied that the existence of a Creator is necessary for freedom in a body of people. Skousen never once acknowledged to readers that Mormon theology is the source for many of his ideas, although his depiction of America is primarily dominated by his devout Mormonism.
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.
The Myth of the Separation of Church and State retrieved on January 7, 2005 from: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
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.
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
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...
...ically examine the people we choose to let sit on our nation’s highest court. No person should be afforded a free ride to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court without some assurances that they will protect and uphold basic Constitutional principles such as the separation of church and state. Failing to do so might well lead to a nation in which we are all less free, just the kind of nation that our founding fathers went to such extraordinary and terrific lengths to avoid.
The separation of church and state is an important concept that helps our country to continue to prosper. The people that first came over to this country left their own generally beca...
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...