There was a time when the entire Europe used to be submitting to the decrees issued by the church. The establishment of the Holy Roman Empire was also the outcome of the dominance influence of church on state and all its institutions…
Download file to see previous pages...
One of the most imperative objectives behind exploring the topic above-mentioned includes seeking the answer to the question whether or not there appears any need for the formulating of the new phase of relations between the church and state in the best interests of the masses at large. Hence, the present paper will provide an insightful outlook of the topic under-examination by seeking support from the works created by the scholars.
The fast and continuous alterations being witnessed in the contemporary era all over the world have forced the thinkers and political and social scientists to re-determine and review the role of church or institution of religion in order to avoid and escape the extremism that appears to be challenging the peace and harmony of the social establishments on the one side, and adding their share in widening the gulf of hatred and conflict among the cultures following the divergent religious belief systems within their respective political jurisdictions on the other during the contemporary era. Consequently, the world looks reflecting the scenario of chaos and disorder even after the advent of marvelous scientific and technological advancements making the life peaceful, comfortable and luxurious one in general. There was a time when the entire Europe used to be submitting to the decrees issued by the church. The establishment of the Holy Roman Empire was also the outcome of the dominance influence of church on state and all its institutions. While elaborating the position of church and state in his remarkable “The Prince”, distinguished Italian philosopher Machiavelli strongly demands the separation of church from the political affairs of government and state (2010, p.45). It is partly due to the very reality that the ecclesiastical principalities or religious rules are unable to cope with the historical patterns altogether. Since the church lays stress upon specific mode of worship as well as leading the life in a standardized manner, the same could not be observed practically in any region of the entire globe. One of the most dominant reasons behind the same is this that the people belonging to divergent faiths, factions and sects co-exist in one and the same socio-political establishment; and if the (Catholic) church representing just one faction of one single faith looks for the masses’ strict observing of the Catholic code of laws, there will be bright probabilities of conflict and clashes in society, leading to anarchical state of affairs in the country subsequently. Rousseau refutes the implementation of religious and social laws by stating that man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains (2008, p.15). Hence, he does not appear to be surrendering before the heavy burdens of laws, which challenge the human liberty in one way or the other. Taking the precedent of the contemporary era rigid orthodox states of Afghanistan and Pakistan, it becomes evident that the nefarious extremist deoband sect of Muslims has made the life of the non-Muslim and peaceful Shiite Muslims miserable and pathetic one by inflicting pains and sufferings upon them with the aim of forcing them to adopt their religious policies and ways at any cost. Such a condemnable religious prejudice has destroyed the efficiency of the political institution on the one side, and has caused the ruination of social fabrics on the other. It is therefore, Machiavelli’s arguments (2010, pp. 47-8) with regards to separation of church and state still carry weight even nearly five centuries after its first publication in 1532. In addition to this, the undue and unnecessary
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
At the time of the inclusion of this provision in the American constitution, it was seen as a revolutionary and progressive policy to adopt. 2- Where did it originate? Is it the US constitution, what did Thomas Jefferson mean when he spoke of maintaining "a wall of separation between church and state?
This is simply because one may have been exposed to some of form of religion and subsequently religion may have found root in his or her way of arguing and even speaking. This is why there is a natural inclination for people referring to religion words when people are in pain or angry.
The enshrining of this separation in the constitution led to a high proliferation of religious activities in the country. With a high number of religious people in America today, the government plays no role in religion; no funding, no endorsements and no prohibitions (ADL, Para 2).
For example: some may argue that separation of state and religion means that the state or the government should not intervene in each other’s issue and they are two different things (Corbett 220). Others might argue that the separation of state and church should be seen in the context of law making and legislative operations.
(Dreishbach 2003) United States Supreme Court subsequently used this in 1878 and then in a series of cases such as Lynch v. Donnelly or Engel V. Vitale or Everson v. Board of education.
First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is also known as the "Establishment Clause', 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." (Kilman 2000).
(Owen 493) Though the language of the First Amendment seems clear enough on the issue of establishment and Free Exercise, the notion of "strict separation" is cloudier. The history of the debate about the role of religion often seeks to attribute particular intentions to the founding framers based on their political and religious belief and imposing those beliefs on the language of the constitution.
This means that, at times, there is a strong enticement on the part of some citizens to transform their religious principles into public policy. Specifically, if religion is a significant influence in a citizen's life, that citizen seems more probable to seek government support of religiously based values.
The fundamental queries are uncomplicated. Do worldly head of states and their group have faith in some god or groups of mysticism whose authority goes beyond that of secular governors Moreover, does a top quality class of people, pastors or other specialists in holiness, exclusively comprehend the celestial laws and desires If so, should not secular rulers, rulers or parliamentarians agree with their rule to the godly will as understood and expounded by the priestly adepts Otherwise, on the other hand, should secular rule hold itself strictly aloof from all religious questions Therefore, the church-state connection has been the focus of argument and controversies all through the past (Frase
In order to accomplish this freedom, the separation between state and religion was introduced. If there would be no separation between church and state, when a president would be elected, their religion might have to be
The founding fathers declined the establishment of America on the principles of Christianity (Hamburger 20). The American constitution makes no exaltation of religion. Historians attribute the distinction between church and state as intended to limit
1 Pages(250 words)Assignment
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Church and State for FREE!