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.
That is to say that legislating morality is an attempt to control behavior without dealing with the spiritual roots of the problem. This case offers both a secular argument and a religious argument. Having a religion based law is fine, but if that is all you have then you should not vote for it. To become a law, there must be... ... middle of paper ... ...uating an issue as evil, and another side defending the issue as a non-evil one. To successfully legislate morality based laws, both sides must conform to the same view.
Just as a Muslim or Christian should not ask fellow citizens to be governed by the Quran or the Bible. Thus, the obvious question “is how can all these different kinds of people (people with different preferences, different moral beliefs, and different religious beliefs) live together in conditions of peace and stability”. In addition, and importantly to Rawls, “the fact of pluralism is permanent. It will not disappear, indeed it is increasing because this plurality is the natural outcome of the operation of reason under conditions of freedom”. Religion and morality are places people must expect divergence.
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.
I believe that the United States is a secular nation with religious influences. We are not fully on one side of the argument, fully secular or fully religious, but blended to compliment both sides. The United States is a secular nation because of the separation between church and state in public institutions. According to the National Secular Society, secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions.
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. Soldiers in the military must understand that there are certain priorities such as unit cohesion, safety and uniformity that must come first when facing conflict in different environments. The freedom to express one’s religion and tradition through dress is not a universal right and is subject to relativism depending on the present situation and perspective. Paragraph: Basic Human right to traditi... ... middle of paper ... ...tural differences and environments around the world. Complete universalism cannot be applied in the case of the military.
Keyes argued "power only ultimately respects another power," and Martin Luther King Jr. was not a preacher by accident. Dershowitz also stated that not everything in the Bible should be believed word-for-word, even George Washington said "indulge religion with caution." Keyes believed that if state and religion should be separated, then why does the Declaration of Independence contain so much about religion? Alan Dershowitz and Alan Keyes would have argued endlessly about religion's role in society if there were not a moderator to stop them. Religion and morality exist together in parallel according to Alan Keyes.
No moral properties are ascribable and so what it considered appropriate behaviour with respect to it is suspect (Plantinga, 2000). The same applies to distinguishing religious experience as opposed to any other experience as an appropriate response to the Real, as causal properties are not attributable (Yandell, 1999). In response to Plantinga’s point on morality Hick argues he is ‘seeking a religious interpretation of religion globally, an interpretation which starts from the conviction that there is a transcendent reality of limitless importance to us.’ (Hick, 2004: xxv). In addition, to this, he says we should also apply critical trust to the other great religions and only doubt religious experience when we have good reason to. These religious experiences are judged based on their moral and spiritual impact and are best explained by moving from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness (Hick, 2004).
It does recognize they held the religious values strong while making the laws that govern our country. It also encourages the idea that they desired a godless government to protect the rights and freewill of mankind. Kramnick and Moore write not to solve problems of society, but to help the public gain awareness of our forefather’s intentions when creating our government. The Constitution is godless, and for good reasons. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not our nation is.
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.