The Ten Commandments should not be allowed to be posted in United States Government buildings. The Ten Commandments are a Judaic set of laws that according to their religious history was handed down from God to the prophet Moses. I believe these postings harm our county, its image of religious freedom, and it violates American citizen’s first amendment right. The three main reasons I believe that they should not be allowed is that it promotes a state-endorsed religion, it promotes religious intolerance and it creates an uncomfortable environment for people of other faiths. State-endorsed Religion The first reason I am against the postings is that it creates a state-endorsed religion.
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”.
The Court had held that their right could not possibly supersede the right to practice and profess the religious beliefs of a billion other people and hence the petiton was rejected. The main issue that came before the court was whether th right to practice, profess or propogate one’s religious beromanleifs was being violated under Article 25. Furthemore, whether the state was obligated to grant the prohibition of such religious practices at State functions. I agree with the Courts decision of not granting the petition. In any case where a fundamental right is breahced, there shall be a burden of proof on the person claiming the violation to ... ... middle of paper ... ...Atheist sociey has a claim to their right to practice their religious beliefs but not at the expense of other religious beliefs.
The current opinion of courts is that the First Amendment bans religion in our government to protect the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from the government. The first amendment does not say church and state should be separate since our founders understood if church and state were completely separate, our government would fall apart. 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.” The first amendment does not state that there was such a separation, but that there was a “wall of separation” which the government could not break. The misunderstood statement from Thomas Jefferson has resulted in Judges who ignore the Constitution and the original intent of the First Amendment of our Founding Fathers (Bonta). The first amendment did not state that there was such a separation, but that there was a “wall of separation” which the government could not break.
So, for example, the US has ruled that a state may not forbid interracial marriages, or forbid inmates from marrying (except under compelling reasons). I am not aware of any argument claiming that the US Constitution currently forbids same-sex marriage, although there are arguments that it requires it either as matter of a fundamental right to marry, or as a matter of equal protection. It has been noted that the federal government has banned polygamy, but I don't believe this is quite true. The US Congress is ultimately responsible for the laws in DC and the territories. It thus banned polygamy in Utah when Utah was a territory.
Fortunately, our country is not a theocracy and public policy should not be based on any religion's values. If a person's religious convictions cause them to believe that gay marriage is wrong, that is personal to them, and that viewpoint should not be thrust onto others. Another argument against gay marriage is that it is seen as destroying the family. Some hold that the family is an immutable institution, but we have seen that the concept of the family is fluid, not static. Divorce used to be illegal in this country, now about half of marriages end in divorce.
The place of religion in public and political life is a massive controversy within the United States. In Divided By God, Feldman attempts to articulate a solution that would promote balance between the values evangelicals and legal secularists. Feldman encouraged a ‘no coercion an no money’ approach to religion in the Untied States. After reviewing additional literature and opinions, Feldman’s solutions seem to oversimplify the issue of religious freedom in the United States, lacking a comprehensive resolution to the complicated issue. The solution Feldman proposed was an attempt to mitigate the disagreement between the values evangelicals and the legal secularists.
This would rightly be seen as outrageous discrimination. Sure, the government shouldn't specially favor religious institutions, but the government shouldn't discriminate against them, either. The government should separate itself from religion by not caring whether a person or institution is religious -- by treating everyone equally regardless of their religious affiliation. The same is true of education, which is for many people the most valuable benefit that the state provides. The government shouldn't give more benefits to religious school students than it gives to students at secular schools, whether government-run or private.
Of course the government similarly will not limit its citizens to certain faiths, for that is one of the freedoms ensured to its people. John Locke produces an assumption that since there will always be these two separate responsibilities the people feel important. Those responsibilities being to the Magistrate as well as to their own personal faith it is important to respect the serration between what has come to be thought of as the soul and the matter. Since God, or any other religious deity is that of a dictator, democracy cannot consider their alleged messenger’s argument to be valid. And since the messenger considers their views as the absolute truth the public sphere is then choked of its ability to argue; one can only argue with reason.
However, Jefferson thought that it was not enough to have a Constitutional provision that debars Congress from establishing a religion for all; it was equally important to separate the Church from the state to allow Religious Freedom, so that each and every one will practice their religions freely without government restrictions. Thus, he opposed the interference of the state in religious practices. Secondly, Jefferson argued that if the state was allowed to interfere with the affairs of the church it will give the government the power to persecute those who oppose its policies. The man, whose ideas and ideals have been shaped by experience and practice,... ... middle of paper ... ...ality and virtue of the state. In summary, I have stated the Constitutional basis with respect to the history of church-state relation in America.