Separation of Church and State in American Government

In the present Americans society, religious belief is dynamic, energetic, and widespread that any other time in the history of the country. The issue of immigration regularly introduces new and distinct religious practices and beliefs to the U.S. irrespective of most Christian traditions that many Americans keep adjusting to the requirements of the increasingly diverse population. Over 90 percent of people in America claim to have faith in God while religion continues to have major effect on politics, culture, and public policy initiatives in America (Scherer, 2013) . However, United States serves among the countries worldwide that distances an established state from religion. In fact, it served as the initial country to engage in the act in 1791. In this case, the government is not required to endorse, promote, or support any form of religion. This indicates that the government should avoid any initiatives that lead to appointment of religious leaders, coerce prayer or worship, avail official sacred scriptures’ explanations, or express any faith statements (Barton, 2013) . Whereas the arrangement is significantly popular within the U.S. as the ‘separation of Church and state” due to the prevalence of churches in the country, it also influences synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions. For scholars, they usually apply the term ‘disestablishment’ with the goal of illustrating the legal aspects attributed to the concept while it serves as the principle that defines the political life of America. Whereas most Americans perceive the facts unremarkable due to their familiarity with them, observers from foreign countries, particularly those belonging to states having formal religions, usually ask the state of separation between church and state in America (Huber & Stanig, 2011) . Thus, the paper argues on the idea of the separation of the Church and state in American Government and the best way forward

The ‘separation of church and state’ notion relates to the initial Founding Fathers of the country while at the same time enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution requires that the state does not have a religion while the state takes over the Church’s social duties. Within the U.S., the notion of distancing the Church from state revolves around John Locke’s political writings together with his social contract standards (Driessen, 2010) . These played a role in the development of political and philosophical ideas of the Constitution’s framers. The primary principle by Locke argues that the government did not have any authority on spiritual issues or in the conscience of persons. Individuals cannot give over these things to the government hence leading to the establishment of a natural right of freedom from the authority by the government. In this sense, the initial goal did not target safeguarding the state from the influence of religion (Handy, 2014) . It aimed at safeguarding persons from the state in hindering any form of religion and reinforcing the rights for individual spiritual beliefs.

The Constitutional Convention did not deal with the issue. When Thomas Jefferson emerged as president, the issue grew in importance. During 1802, the Danbury Baptist’s Association members raised their concerns to Jefferson regarding the Constitution failing to reach the level of the state. Because the approval of the 14 th Amendment was not yet, individual states followed their local governments’ decisions (Sorauf, 2015) . For Jefferson, he reassured the Baptists of the protection of their right to religion. He stipulated that no existing religious majority would force them out of their beliefs. Jefferson added that the no American legislature would institute a law that would foster the creation of a certain religion or hinder people from exercising one. The statement served as the one that led to the establishment of a wall that distanced the state and the church (Lewis, 2014) . The Supreme Court of the U.S. has utilized the statement severally, although it does not exist in the Constitution.

Certainly, the utilitarian argument that argues a separation prevails between the church (Christianity) and the state (the U.S.), reveals that no such thing exists. Certain similarities prevail that hinder a single entity or another to have dominance over the other. However, in the viewpoint of both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, no individual should have the power of compelling others to support or visit any religious place or adopt any religious worship. They also claimed that nobody should restrain, enforce, burthen, or molest people their goods or bodies based on their religious beliefs or opinions (Goldfrank & Rowell, 2012) . Nonetheless, all persons should have the freedom to profess and abide to their opinions regarding religions matters while these should not have influence on civil capacities.

Despite the American government claiming to distance the state from the Church, various incidences prevail that appear contrary to the claim. Various examples prevail in the American society that reveal from the very history of the country that the U.S. continuously endorses Christianity in certain aspects, which might lead the religion to serve as the nation’s de facto state religion (Goldfrank & Rowell, 2012) . In Colonial America, for example, a large number of individuals occupying public offices served as Christians. During 1776, 11 out of the 13 colonies needed individuals to serve as Christians to operate any political offices. The Declaration of Independence also invokes God where it stipulates to hold the truths as self-evident while the Creator and the World’s Supreme Judge endows them (Huber & Stanig, 2011) . Furthermore, during the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln ascertained that the U.S. was a Christian country, while God would allow the nation to bear new freedom. Even today, the Christian God concept has received recognition in all the states of the country while their State Constitutions mention God (Handy, 2014) . In addition, it is evident that the official that the country motto adopts for its currency is “In God We Trust” while the Allegiance Pledge says “one nation, under God (Driessen, 2010) . Additional instances exist supporting the ideal that the U.S. supports the Christian God. For instance, the Congress features Moses’ image while carrying the tablets containing God’s laws. The image faces the House’s Speaker while the Congress says a prayer before commencing any session. When it comes to Presidential Oath, the incoming president needs to have a Holy Bible in the right hand in the courtroom while taking the Oath of Office, while it concludes with “So help me God (Driessen, 2010) .” Based on these practices, it becomes apparent that whereas the statement of the separation between the church and the state prevails in American government, various Christianity elements prevail in diverse government operations, which end up creating confusion as to whether the two are entirely separate.

Additional viewpoints seem to support the Church as having major influence in government affairs. For instance, Woodrow Wilson stipulated that America emerged as a Christian nation while it aimed at exemplifying the righteousness elements associated with the Holy Scripture. In the event of Franklin Roosevelt on June 6, 1944, he prayed while on national radio when American soldiers invaded Normandy, France. He urged God to bless the country to prevail in the enemy’s land and address issues related to racial arrogance. He further requested God to lead the country into victory while in the fight (Scherer, 2013) . Additionally, on December 5, 1974, the 38 president of American, Gerald Ford quoted a speech of 1955 that Dwight D. Eisenhower had composed stipulating that America would not have been able to establish a government or the American lifestyle without the support of God. He said that the most basic thing is to recognize God while expressing the spirit of America (Sorauf, 2015) . In addition, President Ronald Reagan elaborated on the statement claiming that if America forgot God’s ways, the nation would end up perishing. Moreover, in November 1966, the House of Representatives’ Speaker revealed that the American society had the duty of supporting the idea that God gave them the county and that it would only emerge successful once it submitted to the will of God (Lewis, 2014) . In this vein, it becomes crucial to realize that whereas the American government claims to be separated from the Church, evidence prevails that reveals the manner in which senior officials in government have expressed their devotion to God.

Irrespective of the claims that the government is not entirely separated from the Church, it is crucial to note that the Constitution’s First Amendment has an actual quote, which contradicts the ideas of the U.S. serving as a Christian state. It stipulates that the Congress is not eligible to draft any laws that would show respect for the creation of a religion or hinder practice of any thereof. For these two parts, referred to as the ‘establishment clause’ together with the ‘free exercise clause,’ they establish the textual foundation in which the Supreme Court adopts the doctrine of the church and the state serving as separate entities. Even during the 19 th century, several theologians argued that distancing the Church from the state was not a sign of disrespecting it (Barton, 2013) . However, the move aimed at allowing the country to shift away from the European mode in which the Church exercised totalitarianism.

When it comes to the First Amendment, it is crucial to have sufficient understanding of the differences that prevail in the two clauses pertaining to religion. In this manner, it would be possible to gain insights on the legal boundaries surrounding the freedom of expression religion within the U.S. They stipulate that the “Congress is not bound to create any laws that respect the development of religion or hinder people from exercising it (Driessen, 2010) . In the event of these clauses, they play a crucial role with it comes to institutionalizing the idea that America has toward freedom of religion through hindering the government from engaging in any prohibitory acts based on religious practice or belief. For the Establishment Clause, it hinders the government from exercising any form of discrimination that seems to favor certain religious practices or beliefs through endorsements or implementing them in actions or laws (Handy, 2014) . When it comes to the Free Exercise Clause, it deters the government from embarking on any form of discrimination against religious practices or institutions or persons.

Whereas the clauses on religion relate closely with provisions on anti-discrimination, they safeguard freedom of religion in distinct ways, the Establishment Clause emphasizes on the activities of government workers or agencies. For instance, in case a teacher from a public school leads learners to believe that Christianity serves as the only real religion, the educator would be perceived as violating the Establishment Clause (Goldfrank & Rowell, 2012) . The reason for this is that the government, which has hired the teacher as its employee is not supposed to support any religious practices or beliefs. When it comes to the Free Exercise Clause, it targets private individuals and their affiliations to religion. For instance, the government would be violating the rights advocated in the Free Exercise Clause in the event that it discourages the Islam practice (Scherer, 2013) . It can do this by engaging in acts, such as limiting imams’ licensure, establishing particularly stringent laws against mosques, and declining to permit practicing Muslim religion in prisons among other restrictions.

For the two clauses on religion, they are in continuous tension with each other. For instance, interpreting one expansively usually requires limiting explanation of the other. For the parties devoted toward ensuring that religious beliefs receive the biggest safeguards available on matters related to exercising religion, they lay major emphasis toward making sure that the government does not exercise any form of discrimination against those exercising various religions (Huber & Stanig, 2011) . These kinds of persons normally encourage the government to endorsing any person affiliated to any form of religion when probable. For the individuals arguing that the government should not support any person affiliated to a certain religion, they indicate that they are in support of a broader Establishment Clause’s elaboration (Sorauf, 2015) . Those opposing the idea of accommodating individuals from any religion reveal that the government needs to exercise neutrality on matters related to religion while ensuring not to back any religion (Driessen, 2010) . This is referred to as ‘neutrality’ standing in this perspective. Additional critics of accommodating individuals of any religion, perceived as ‘separationists’ aim at distancing religion from state significantly even when it comes to matters that support non-religion over religion.

In conclusion, while the American government continues arguing that the affairs of the Church are separate from those of the state, it is apparent that certain element where religion seems to influence certain elements of the public life. Furthermore, whereas the U.S. Supreme Court keeps arguing on areas that religion might influence the public, the Constitution offers the real illustration when it reveals that no civil or political power and authority should influence spiritual situations. Since the state does not dictate to a believer how to behave or act in certain instances, religion should avoid influencing public settings. Rather, it is apparent that the regulations, rules, oaths, as well as its very foundation do not differ from Christianity entirely, although exercising neutrality is essential between the organizations.

References

Barton, D. (2013). Separation of church and state: what the founders meant. Pennsauken: BookBaby.

Driessen, M. D. (2010). Religion, state, and democracy: analyzing two dimensions of church-state arrangements. Politics and Religion, 3 (1), 55-80.

Goldfrank, B., & Rowell, N. (2012). Church, state, and human rights in Latin America. Religion & Ideology, 13 (1), 25-51.

Handy, R. T. (2014). Undermined ustablishment: church-state relations in America, 1880-1920. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Huber, J. D., & Stanig, P. (2011). Church-state separation and redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 95 (7-8), 828-836.

Lewis, A. R. (2014). Abortion politics and the decline of the separation of church and state: the southern Baptist case. Politics and Religion, 7 (3), 521-549.

Scherer, M. (2013). Beyond church and state: democracy, secularism, and conversion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sorauf, F. J. (2015). The wall of separation: the constitutional politics of church and state. Princeton: Princeton University Press.