Seperation Of Church And State Research Essay

Seperation Of Church And State Essay, Research Paper

The Separation of Church and State in America

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Church and State seem to be two words which are wholly inseparable from each other. Religion in political relations and the authorities has been present since the federal authorities was foremost put into topographic point. The issue of faith is present in such varied subjects as the public school system, presidential elections, right down to the National Anthem. The fact of the affair is, Church and State are really far from being separate in the United States.

& # 8220 ; Congress shall do no jurisprudence esteeming an constitution of faith, or forbiding the free exercising thereof. & # 8221 ; These gap words of the First Amendment of the Constitution set forth a warrant of spiritual freedom in the United States. The Establishment clause was intended to carry through this terminal by, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, making a & # 8220 ; wall of separation between Church and State. & # 8221 ; The First Amendment prevented the authorities from interfering in it & # 8217 ; s citizens spiritual lives. It did non, nevertheless, prevent the federal authorities from prosecuting in it & # 8217 ; s ain.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Ratified in 1868, states that & # 8220 ; No State shall do or implement any jurisprudence which shall foreshorten the privileges or unsusceptibilities of citizens of the Unites States ; nor shall any State deprive any individual of life, autonomy, or belongings, without due procedure of jurisprudence ; nor deny to any individual within its legal power the equal protection of the laws. & # 8221 ; This Amendment, one of the Civil War Amendments, would subsequently be used by the Supreme Court to widen the faith clauses of the first amendment beyond the state and to the provinces. After the Civil War, President Grant moved for the province authoritiess, in add-on to the federal authorities, to be kept out of the citizens spiritual personal businesss.

In 1876 James G. Blaine proposed an Amendment to congress to carry through this undertaking, widening the spiritual clauses of the first amendment, and adding a prohibition of assistance to parochial schools. Senator Frelinghuysen, who opposed the Blaine amendment, stated that & # 8220 ; The Blaine Amendment really decently extends the prohibition of the first amendment of the Constitution to the States. Thus the Blaine Amendment prohibits the States, for the first clip, from the constitution of faith, from forbiding its free exercising, and from doing any spiritual trial a making to office. & # 8221 ; Senator Eaton of Connecticut, and others with the same expostulations to the Blaine Amendment, felt that the Constitution prevented congressional engagement in the peoples spiritual lives, and that the provinces should be left to do their ain determinations on the affair. The Blaine Amendment was proposed to the House, passed, and so defeated in the Senate. It would be proposed to congress and defeated over and over once more for the following 50 old ages, but non abandoned until the Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the faith clauses of the First Amendment to the provinces doing the Blaine Amendment otiose.

In 1908 The United States Supreme Court reviewed a series of instances & # 8220 ; in which the provinces were held non bound by the right to bear weaponries guaranteed by the Second Amendment, the right to a expansive jury indictment guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment right to be confronted by one & # 8217 ; s accusers, or the Seventh Amendment right to test by jury in civil cases. & # 8221 ; This did non intend that none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights could be applied to the provinces. It merely meant that because the federal authorities was prohibited from making something by the Bill of Rights, did non intend that the provinces were capable to the same prohibitions.

State tribunals continued to keep that the faith clauses of the First Amendment were non applicable to province actions. & # 8220 ; In a instance in 1908, for illustration, two Roman Catholics, two Jews, and one individual who & # 8216 ; does non believe in the inspiration of the Bible, & # 8217 ; sued their school board in Texas to halt the reading in the public schools of the King James version of the Bible, the recitation of the Lord & # 8217 ; s supplication, and the vocalizing of anthem. The kids were non required to take part, most Biblical transitions were taken from the Old Testament, and when a rabbi complained about certain of the vocals being prepared for a Christmas pageant, the overseer of schools, harmonizing to his testimony, & # 8216 ; had it stopped. & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; Their were no misdemeanors of the Texas province fundamental law in these activities, every bit good as no mention to the federal Constitution in the Texas Supreme Court findings.

As of 1940, more so 150 old ages after the Fundamental law came into consequence, more so seventy old ages after the acceptance of the Fourteenth Amendment, the faith clauses of the First Amendment had ne’er been extended to the provinces. In 1947, Arch R. Everson argued to the Supreme Court to widen the constitution clause of the First Amendment to the provinces. The instance was refering the province authoritiess paying for transit parochial school kids the schools. Justice Hugo Black seized this chance and stated that & # 8220 ; The & # 8216 ; constitution of faith & # 8217 ; clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a province nor the Federal Government can put up a church. Neither can go through Torahs which aid one faith, assistance all faiths, or prefer one faith over another. & # 8221 ; This was merely one measure in widening the full Bill of Rights to the provinces.

The tribunals have created a figure of trials which can be used to find the constitutionality of proposed Torahs or to settle instances. In 1971 the federal tribunals created a trial, foremost utilized in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, to keep the separation of Church and State. The Lemon trial consists of three inquiries which a tribunal must inquire in order to go through a legislative act. The inquiries being: ( 1 ) whether the authorities & # 8217 ; s action has a layman or a spiritual intent ; ( 2 ) whether the primary consequence of the authorities & # 8217 ; s action is to progress or back faith ; and ( 3 ) whether the authorities & # 8217 ; s policy or pattern Fosters an inordinate web between authorities and faith. In 1992 the instance of Lee v. Weisman, 503 U.S. 577, came up with another trial, the Coercion Test, to find if any force per unit area is applied to coerce or hale persons to take part in spiritual patterns. The Court has defined that unconstitutional coercion occurs when the authorities directs a formal spiritual exercising in such a manner as to coerce the engagement of persons who object to the exercising. Finally, in the

Endorsement trial, pulling from the 1989 instance of Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, a authorities action is examined to see if it unconstitutionally endorses faith by conveying a message that a faith is favored, preferable, or promoted over other beliefs. This wall of separation between Church and State is non rather every bit effectual as it possibly should be.

One of the most widely publicized cases of the separation between Church and State contention is prayer in public schools. Equally late as 200 old ages ago, & # 8220 ; instruction on all degrees in Europe and the Americas was about wholly church controlled. & # 8221 ; For around the first 50 old ages of its being, public school was able to prosecute in moral indoctrination merely because the many different spiritual and moral features of immigrants, that would come to determine America, were non yet an issue. After the rush of immigrants into America in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the public schools underwent many alterations. Various spiritual denominations were unable to compromise on certain issues. For illustration, Christians and Jews debated how they could pass on their common ethical heritage, without bewraying their profound dissensions on Jesus Christ.

In 1884, 1890, 1898, 1904, and 1904 once more, the Supreme Court & # 8217 ; s of Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kansas, and Kentucky severally held that Bible reading, recitation of the Lord & # 8217 ; s Prayer, vocalizing of spiritual vocals, and/or supplication in the public schools of each province did non go against their province fundamental laws. In 1902 the Supreme Court of Nebraska decided that these spiritual Acts of the Apostless in public schools did go against the fundamental law of Nebraska. & # 8220 ; In none of these instances, neither the 1s in which spiritual activities in public schools were upheld nor the 1s in which they were struck down, was the Constitution of the United States even mentioned. & # 8221 ; By 1963 Bible reading was required in 13 provinces, and permitted in 25 others. However, the Bible & # 8217 ; s utilize as devotional literature, or as a book for moral direction has been forbidden by the United States Supreme Court in the instance of Abington School District v. Schempp in 1963.

Even such apparently harmless activities such as Christmas plays, carols, recitations, and the building of foundling hospitals, every bit good as Judaic kids ordaining the festival of Hanukkah have been brought to a arrest by the tribunals determinations. The place taken by the tribunal is that the First Amendment commands & # 8220 ; that the Government maintain rigorous neutrality, neither helping nor opposing faith & # 8221 ; in the public schools. The schools began to try to set up morality codifications which could be taught in the public schools. Teachers tried to learn moral values through emphasizing good citizenship, and on the moral and religious values underlying democracy. A survey papers by the Department of Religion and Public Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. stated that the issues of worship and committedness to a peculiar religion belonged in the place and church, and that larning ethical codifications belonged to the school, along with the place and church. The chief job with the instruction of moral and religious values in public school is that these values can non be taught without inquiring the inquiry of motive. No affair how good the purposes of a instructor are in replying a spiritual inquiry they can non avoid enforcing their ain beliefs and irrupting into affairs which are better left to the church and parents.

The Pledge of Allegiance, which is still to this twenty-four hours recited in public schools, is another illustration of the pervasiveness of faith in the instruction system. The Pledge provinces: I pledge commitment to the flag of the United States of America, and to the democracy for which it stands, one state under God, indivisible, with autonomy and justness for all. The Pledge was foremost published Sept. 8, 1892, but the phrase, & # 8220 ; under God & # 8221 ; , was added by an act of Congress in 1954. The issue of school supplication may ne’er be solved every bit long as there are so many different readings of the Torahs sing it.

Religion has ever been a really strong factor in Presidential elections. In 1960 an overpowering figure of Catholics cast their ballot for John F. Kennedy, instead so Richard Nixon. This is mostly because of the fact that Kennedy was himself a Catholic. The bulk of conservative Protestants, on the other manus, were turned off by his Catholicity and voted for Kennedy & # 8217 ; s opposition Nixon. Particular faiths can besides act upon which manner a elector will vote. Broad Protestants are more likely to vote for a republican campaigner, Conservative Protestants are more likely to vote for a Democratic campaigner, and Catholics are besides more likely to vote for a democratic campaigner. Religious beliefs and political attitudes are besides connected, in that a member of a more conservative faith is more likely to hold a conservative political point of view, and frailty versa.

Religion is so widespread in our authorities, that it even shows up in our National Anthem. The 3rd to the last line of the Star Spangled Banner reads & # 8220 ; And this be our slogan: & # 8216 ; in God is our trust. & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; A mention to God made an visual aspect in Lincoln & # 8217 ; s Gettysburg Address as good: & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; that this state under God shall hold a new birth of freedom, and that authorities of the people, by the people, for the people shall non die from the earth. & # 8221 ; The motto & # 8220 ; In God we Trust & # 8221 ; was put on all paper currency by an Act of Congress in 1955 and was chosen as our national slogan by an Act of Congress in 1956.

Religion is highly permeant in the United States authorities, and the United States itself. It is virtually ineluctable in our lives. It thrives in our schools, in our Congress, in our Courts and in our places. Church and State are so highly far from being separate in our civilization. In fact the separation of Church and State may be an unachievable end. But every bit long as the Church and State have anything to make with one another, the battle will go on.

Goldberg, George. Church, State, and the Constitution. Washington, D.C. : Regnery Gateway, 1987.

Mueller, Arnold C. & # 8220 ; Religion in the Public Schools. & # 8221 ; In Church and State Under God, erectile dysfunction. Albert G. Huegli. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1964.

Lopatto, Paul. Religion and the Presidential Election. Edited by Gerald M. Pomper. New York: Praeger, 1985.

Religious Answers Online, Church and State, hypertext transfer protocol: //www.spiritual-answers.com/Questions/church_and_state.htm