Religious Freedom

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.

While original settlers came to America to create a Christian homeland where they could practice their faith how they wanted, America quickly became a homeland for religious freedom through a mixing pot of differing religions, cultures, and ethnicities, enough open land for them to exist together, and the key idea of the separation of Church and State. The Protestants who emigrated to America knew from experience of the negative effect the government had on religion when the two were operating together. With the mindset of creating a new perfect holy land, they decided to make sure both church and state worked separately. While Puritans still did everything they could to enforce their beliefs in New England, including exiling those who did not attend church regularly, the core idea of separation of church and state was in the minds of the people. In order to have a country that values the freedom of religion, the church has to be out of any government policy.

Should this conflict be approached as a matter of individual sovereignty or should a global norm be adopted? Technically speaking, the right to express religious freedom without the influence of government is enshrined in sovereign treaties, doctrines, and constitutions all over the world. It is also addressed at a global scale, specifically in the Declaration of Human Rights(SOURCE). However, this matter would not be necessary for discussion and improvement if there were no exceptions. While the general idea is that this is a basic human right and there should be absolutely no reservations to religious expression, there are certain matters where religion must be regarded behind the interests of national security and individual safety.

The 1st Amendment is a very essential freedom that everyone should be entitled to. Our independence is the most important essential need of humans. It lets us be and act how we are and want to be. The reason why the Europeans immigrated to America was to find their freedom of religion. After the colonists worked their hardest to find what they were looking for they finally achieved it.

Finally, I argue that the two schools of thought have a common ground. This is followed by a summary of my key arguments and a conclusion to my essay. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States establishes religious freedom, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Against the Constitutional background, Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father, wrote a Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. The Bill was passed in the Virginia General Assembly in 1777. 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.

There are organizations working internationally to protect our rights and there are religious groups working individually and together to assure that we can exercise our rights fully. The first amendment addresses freedom of religion, speech, and the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition the government (U.S. Constitution). This amendment specifically states that the people preserve the right to worship how, where, and who they want. They also have the freedom to not worship as an atheist. Congress cannot make any laws that take away these rights or prohibit the exercise of them.

Therefore, the current establishment of se... ... middle of paper ... ...nderstood. However, throughout the course of American history activists have tried to sway the idea that joint church and state is not only beneficial, but mandatory for growth in American moral culture. While changing the government may change the sense of leadership, redistricting laws to benefit one specified religious group is contrary to the idea of a democratic system where each person has a chance to be heard and live in equality. The existing stance separation of church and state is an obligation that the American government and people, must fight to uphold in order to insure that the rights of the American population are not infringed upon. The founding fathers fought and died for the ideas of a country that embodied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and it would be intolerable to try and put a stop to a system that embodies these core ideas.

In general, the idea of positive toleration creates an environment that is encouraging of all religions. The second philosophy, which will be referred to as the “Wall of Separation,” encourages government freedom from religion. Although historically these two philosophies have jockey back and forth in public popularity, as America moves into the future, the Wall of Separation philosophy will take a strong-hold and will set the course for how the Establishment Clause will affect local government, schools, and private religious practice. The legal basis for religious freedom cases is founded in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 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.” From this statement, two schools of interpretation were born.

The language in this amendment was very clear and demonstrative. It is quite obvious that the US did not want to be associated with any particular religion; neither did they want to prohibit any persons from practicing whatever religion they so decided. It is commonly perceived that this Establishment Clause of the first amendment was so that the US government would not promote in religion over another. In doing this, it was also assumed that there would be no special favoritism shown toward any group of people on the basis of religio... ... middle of paper ... ...se such activities were apparent, this proved that the rejection of RSO status did not hinder the organization in any way from being an active and effective organization (Northwest). Such a case should be an example to organizations abroad.

Religious Freedom is essential and it is being threatened. Religious Freedom is the freedom to practice your own religion. First, we have this freedom because of our Founding Fathers. The first amendment of the Constitution says,” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise.” Unfortunately, around the world some people are not as lucky as us, and don’t have religious freedom. Pope Benedict 16 and our Founding Fathers were extraordinary leaders that have stood up for religious freedom.