Evolved National Framework in Relationship to the Separation of Church and State - Thesis Example

Fulfilling an Evolved National Framework in Relationship to the Separation of Church and One of the important factors established by the founding fathers was the idea that there should be the freedom to express religious believes so that the church was not corrupt and the government was not intrusive. Modern beliefs of some factions have perverted this idea, or perhaps even just ignored this constraint with the idea that morality has a place in governing the people to the extent to dictate how and what the people should practice and believe. In modern life, it is even more essential that religious beliefs and mythologies stay out of civic decision making, because the variety of the ways in which people believe has become even further diverse with the growth of a variety of denominations in the Christian religion, as well as an emergence of other forms of worship that have been able to establish formalized worship within the United States. As America has begun to define a more enlightened understanding of how to accept cultures beyond the European-based societies, the acceptance of religious diversity is imperative in order to continue peaceful cohabitation. In many countries, the ties between the church and the government are so strong that corruption of one upon the other occurs, and as a result their citizens try to worship under the power of a system that interlaces morality into its laws, which can be coercive and oppressive. Religious beliefs in government lead to oppression through forcing people to enact belief systems rather than allowing them to practice their beliefs through faith. In addition, different practices create diversity that should not be divided by laws that support one faith over another. In law, the importance of ethics is the primary influence through which legislating and regulating conduct should be considered. Morality, on the other hand, is defined by an individual’s capacity to define how their own conduct will reflect their beliefs. The original concept of the First Amendment was defined by the concept that the Congress would not have the ability to form a national denomination. Patton (1995), as an example, argues that the framers could not have meant the separation of church and state within the defining premise of the intent of the First Amendment. He states that because the Constitutions that were being ratified within the states were developed with stipulations that their “elected officials to affirm belief in the Christian faith”; that the framers of the national Constitution could not have meant that religion should be divorced from government. While it may be that an assumption of the inclusion of religion might have existed during the time period in which the Constitution was written might have existed, it is also true that the framers were concerned with establishing the root of how to separate religion from government, just as they included the idea of equality even though women and those with African heritages were not afforded those rights at the time of the establishment of the document. Modern interpretations of the Constitution have evolved to take a more strict view on how the Constitutions was framed, rather than take assumptions that were made by those who wrote it. It was assumed that anyone who was worth considering as a part of the governing process would naturally be a Christian, just as it was assumed that only men of European heritage could be considered full citizens. The Constitution takes a hard line on the ideas of equality and freedom even though society of the time had an economy based upon the use of slaves for labor. The Constitution has had be interpreted with a more evolved understanding of its tenets as the evolution of the understanding of how equality and freedom are defined has been refined to be inclusive for all people. Washington (1796) in his farewell address stated that “The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations”. In the next breath, however, he stated “With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles” (Washington, 1796). During the time that this was written there was an assumption that to be a part of the world meant to be of European heritage and that one practiced Christianity. Prejudice was rife within the framers, their beliefs on the rights of those who did not fall into their ideas of what was legitimate existence clouding their ability to live up to the rights and freedoms upon which they based the national ideologies that was supposed to be American. It is decidedly un-American to exist within a framework of prejudice, but the framers existed in this philosophical oppression in which all were equal as long as their parents were from Europe and they were men who practiced Christian principles. It is a grateful modern people who can look at the wisdom of what they wrote and interpret it through enlightened beliefs that all people means literally all, and that the prohibition against establishing religion is meant to prohibit political power of any religion. Novak (2006) writes that “Perhaps the Founders avoided Christian language because they didn’t want to divide one another, since different colonies were founded under different Christian inspirations”. This assumption is made based on the idea that much of what was done by the framers extended into anecdotes that were based upon Christian principles. The framers of the Constitution had a set of beliefs based upon concepts that had not fully been developed within the cultural framework. Therefore, it was assumed that to write about the equality of men was restricted to that of just European heritage based men. In a modern society, it is clear that the interpretation of the principles on which the Constitution was written should be framed by an enlightened society that realizes that all people should be equal and share equal freedoms. This includes the development of law through the principle that government should not define for citizens how they should practice religion or through what manner they should express belief. According to Spaulding (2005), the founders “sought the official separation of church and state in order to build civil and religious liberty on the grounds of equal natural rights, but never intended--indeed, roundly rejected--the idea of separating religion and politics”. There is a persistent belief that the words that the founders wrote were not what they intended as the way in which they acted sometimes was in direct conflict with the Constitution. There is a great deal of proof that the framers had an expectation that religious principles would be a foundation for the creation of law. The statement by Washington in his Farewell Address quoted previously shows that they expectations of the framers of the Constitution expected the use of religion as a basis upon which to define American life. Religion will always influence politics, people supporting law through what they believe to be right. What must be divided from politics are those beliefs that specifically support one faction or another that decides the morality of the individual rather than creating an ethical framework through which morality can function. According to Dennison’s (2011) discussion of Nietzsche’s The Antichrist, the revelation of how the Christian God has created an appeal to the masses is discussed. Dennison writes “The God for "everyman" is attractive to those who live in conditions of powerlessness and misery, in that it allows them to deny their present existence in favor of a better one which is to come, in an appeal to a “redemption in a world beyond”. The emergence of the United States was based on the rejection of an upper class, a dominating monarchy being repugnant to the framers. The people for whom Christianity was designed were the very people who were developing the American national ideology. There is no doubt that Christian principles were interwoven into the ideals that created the ideological framework that resulted in the Constitution. In striving to create freedom from oppression, the framers specifically denied the document language that would assign it to one religion or another. This is not a mistake, but a condition of enlightenment that prepared for the development of a nation that would eventually shed its prejudices and oppressive intolerances in order to become a strong nation of people that understood that through the acceptance of ethical principles, morality would thrive. It is when morality is dictated that the people are oppressed. The people of the United States have been given a gift of freedom from the constraints that would dictate to them how to have faith, and through this gift is the foundation for an ever evolving enlightenment. Dreisbach (2006) suggests that the idea of the separation of church and state is a mistake that became part of the vernacular through quotation of a letter written by Jefferson within the court verdict of Everson v The Board of Education (1947). Instead, it is possible that this was a clarification of the First Amendment through a quotation from one of the framers of the document. Clarification is the responsibility of the judicial branch of government. The concept of this separation is in concert with the nature of the First Amendment and as society has experienced growth, the Constitution has remained a document from which wisdom on how to frame liberty can be interpreted. As freedom has grown and been re-examined in the light of the needs of a broader public, the ideas that oppress one group over another have begun to be shed in order to provide the best possible national set of ethics. Through these ethics, freedom begins to emerge in the choices that people make that allow them to express their spiritual belief systems as they are best served. Within this freedom, the war against oppression is waged, the battle against prejudice fought in the essence of how the interpretation of personal freedom is redefined within each generation. References Dennison, T. J. (22 January 2011). Nietzsches The Antichrist. The Secular Web. Retrieved from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/travis_denneson/antichrist.html Dreisbach, D. (23 June 2006). The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church– State Law, Policy, and Discourse Novak, M. (6 November 2006). Faith and the American founding: Illustrating religion’s influence. First Principles Series. Retrieved from http://heartland.org/sites /all/modules/custom/heartland_ migration/files/pdfs/20657.pdf Patton, J. W. (November 1995). The wall of separation between church and state. The Freeman Ideas on Liberty. Retrieved from http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-wall-of- separation-between-church-and-state/ Spaulding, M. (5 December 2005). The meaning of religious liberty. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/12/the-meaning-of- religious-liberty Washington. G. (1796). Washington’s farewell address 1796. The Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp Read More