They propose the conception of America using this awareness of which the object was designed instead of seeing one-sided views to our nation. As citizens in a democratic government an understanding of the reasons laws were created help gain knowledge about how society is to proceed. This government protects people from politicians who stand for issues on religion. The Godless Constitution acknowledges the large population of Christians that created our Constitution. It does recognize they held the religious values strong while making the laws that govern our country.
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. Although I do not consider myself a radical secularist, I identify more strongly with Walzer’s viewpoints. He stresses the importance of the structural, ritual, and political/cultural aspects of society necessary to successfully separate religion from politics. I strongly agree that a sharp institutional divide between church and state needs to exist, in which the church does not interfere in matters of the state and vice versa.
I will then proceed to discuss the attractive features of the Divine Command Theory. After I will discus “The Euthypro Problem” and its argument against the Divine Command Theory. Lastly I will discuss the results of Divine Command Theory and its effects on believers of God. Divine Command Theory is a religious approach to morality. The basis of this theory is that God is the lawmaker and as devout free agents, we choose to follow His commands.
Our ideas are not banned, but is restricted and that is because it could bring harm or trouble not only to you but to everyone else involved. The United States placed the freedom of speech into the Constitution for a reason and that is to keep ourselves at bay; we do not want to put ourselves into a situation just for something we did or said, which would be considered insane. And so, to have peace, I believe that we should treat people equally and respect them for who they are not how we think. In regards to the religious aspect, everyone is entitled to a religion, however it is important that nobody should be judged for whatever religion they follow. That is their choice to make and should not be forced upon to follow that does not suit them; we have freedom to make our own decisions, but I do agree with Kant that a society should have something to believe
One could argue over that point (Chemerinsky). With the neutrality approach, there would no doubt be a difference between what a Christian identifies as a religious endorsement, and what an atheist views as a religious endorsement. It would be hard for Supreme Court Justices to give consistent rulings on religious topics because their rulings would almost always be based on a matter of perspective. Many on the pro-neutrality side believe that religion does have a place in our public school system. Daniel Spiro author and philosopher believes that ideally “Public schools must become a free marketplace of religious ideals.
The spirit, in turn, gives us the happiness and freedom at which the law aims…" Additionally, it is important to understand Luther’s distinction between the Law and the Gospel in order to further explore Luther’s understanding of human freedom. The Law is God’s commands; it allows humans to coexist, limits chaos and condemns sinfulness, though it is not God’s road... ... middle of paper ... ...must refer everything to God. For Luther, everything in relation to salvation is determined through the will of God, therefore leaving no room for individual will, leaving Kant and Luther’s views irreconcilable. Kant attributes freedom as a presupposition of human action, he attributes a higher status to human freedom, to far from simply being determined by God or even Satan, rather freedom can achieve to the level of self-determination. Freedom according to Kant is will independent from foreign will and therefore reason should guide to individual principles independent of outside influences.
However, I am aware that the moral basis for the tradition of English law that the U.S. legislative and judicial systems are deeply rooted in, are based on essentially Christian principles. As I think that morality without Christ is ultimately empty, then to legislate true morality would be to legislate Christianity, thus violating the Church and State separation. Seeking to mend the religious backsliding in the United States by this sort of method is not right. It is trying to get the government to cover a moral problem by redefining it through political change rather than dealing with the spiritual issues first. That is to say that legislating morality is an attempt to control behavior without dealing with the spiritual roots of the problem.
This is not especial provisions that can guarantee the religious... ... middle of paper ... ...without the recognition of and practical loyalty to other types of public freedoms particularly, freedom of association and speech would be meaningful. The mentioned freedoms should not be limited by any religion or ideology. The only reasonable limitation to public freedoms is other people’s rights and freedoms. The only place that government can stop people from exercising their religion is where a law is violated; a law which is passed enacted and applied by a secular government. To put it in a nutshell, religious freedoms have to be respected and protected.
Fundamentalism is an espresso shot of Christianity—strong, bitter, and undiluted. Fundamentalists believe the Bible should be interpreted as literal fact, not metaphorically. To them, it is God’s direct word to humanity and the ultimate earthly authority. And so fundamentalists follow the Bible with unwavering certainty, as if it were God himself, and press their interpretation of the book upon society. But the certainty at fundamentalism’s core is unwarranted, leading them to wrongfully ignore their oppositions’ own valid opinions and the potential gains that come with them.
The principle of democracy that is directly applicable to this situation is Equality under the Law. George Reynolds took his case to the Supreme Court in objection that he could not fully pursue his religion. He argued that the first amendment guarantees that persons will be free from any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That no federal law could interfere with a person’s religious belief or with actions based on those beliefs. That the federal law was unconstitutional and his conviction should be overturned.