The Influence of Religion on the First Amendment - Research Paper Example

Task Introduction The bond linking religion and democracy in this dissertation is the government, exclusively the American government. It will be sensible to ascertain the effect caused by the merger of the American government and religion. The thesis of this paper, which will seek to guide the inclusion of viable content in the paper will be, the influence and power of religion make vulnerable the establishment clause plus the free exercise clause of the American constitution. Literature Review It is sufficiently practical to start this research work by first understanding the indepth meaning of some of the vital concepts that will form the basis of this paper. Democracy is one key concept that will be used and its definition is as follows: It is a system integrated into governance/governments where citizens come in unison to determine the appropriate public policies, laws, and more so, what the deem fit and justifiable in regard to their states’ actions (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1999). In observation, democracy can be termed as the degree to which a given government system comes close to achieving this idealistic foundation. A political system that comes close or in approximation internalizes the ideal democracy is termed to as ‘a democracy’ (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1999). While there exists no unanimously acknowledged description of the concept ‘democracy’, free will and fairness have been widely acknowledged as imperative and unique characteristics of democracy. These doctrines are mirrored in the general populace being equal in the eyes of the established laws and boast equal admittance to related governmental processes (Somer, 2000). For instance, the types of freedom enjoyed by the populace are protected by the widely recognized and legitimized liberties and rights which are by and large constitutionally protected (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1999). Religion is a concept defined as an anthology of cultural arrangements, convictional structures, and accepted worldviews that institute symbols that link up spirituality to humankind and in most instances, to values considered moral. The word religion varies from personal conviction because it portrays public aspect (Dahl, 1998). Religions have structured manners and structures that include clerical command and leadership chains which amount to constitution of adhering members, laity congregations, and standardized meetings of worship and rituals. The Establishment Clause constitutes the American constitution’s First Amendment and affirms that the American congress shall in no manner make law or decree relating to religion institution (Somer, 2000). The establishment clause has in the main been taken to mean prohibition of: 1). the institution/formation of a nationally binding religion by the American congress serving at any given time, or 2). the inclination by the any serving American government to prefer any kind of religion over others/another (Farish, 1998). The former approach/interpretation is called the ‘no aid’ or ‘separation" interpretation. The latter interpretation/approach is labeled the ‘accommodation’ or the ‘non-preferential’ interpretation. Jointly, with the Religious Freedom Clause, (Free Exercise Clause), the two constitute the First Amendment’ religion clauses. The accommodation constitutional interpretation forbids any sitting American Congress from fancying one religious establishment over others (Cohen, 1998). It however does not bar the existing government's admission into the religious sphere to craft adjustments with the purposeful aim of achieving the rationale of the related Free Exercise Clause. The Free Exercise Clause disallows any sitting government’s intrusion into religion even if the meddling is utterly unpremeditated (Inglehart, 1997). In case the interference is deemed deliberate, the accommodation law will definitely conflict with the Religious Freedom Clause/Free Exercise Clause. In case the intrusion is inadvertent, the law will be steadily upheld provided that the law in play is the least restraining way of realizing a convincing state/government interest (Cohen, 1998). The begging query arises out of these interpretations: How strong and tough are the guarantees of the religious freedom? It surely forbids some Americans the right and freedom to offer human being sacrifices (Hurst, 1997). It therefore emphasizes that religious freedom ceases to be absolute and therefore unlimited (Somer, 2000). Cases established under the umbrella of the Free Exercise Clause engage harmonizing the freedom to connect in religious actions and activities alongside the American government's right to institute and implement laws touching on health, security, and all-purpose wellbeing of the American citizens. For instance, in the 1879 case pitting Reynolds v. United States, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints followers, otherwise called Mormons, disputed the existing federal laws of the time that barred polygamy.The male Mormon followers asserted that marrying many wives, contrary to the legally accepted one wife, was acceptable in their religion and was admissible in the eyes of the First Amendment (Farish, 1998). The American Supreme Court at the time differed with the religion followers, stating that the Free Exercise Clause disallows people to contravene the established laws that defend the American society’s wellbeing. Correspondingly, in Jacobsen v. Massachusetts case of 1905, the American Supreme Court asserted that the Seventh - day Adventist members had to abide by the established state laws that necessitated vaccinations meant to shield the populace against fatal viruses prevalent at the time. In Employment Division v. Smith case of 1990, the Court also ruled that the Oregon administration could stop indigenous American citizens from taking peyote, a hallucinogenic medicine, in their religious sacramental rituals (Somer, 2000). When settling on the correct stance to take in case an established law in the constitution violates the right to religious freedom, the American Supreme Court mostly asserts that the established law ought not to show favoritism by handling religions and their followers differently (Hurst, 1997). The Supreme Court in America has however asserted contradictory rulings in diverse religious-related cases. In the case pitting Braunfeld v. Brown of 1961, the Supreme Court in America upheld a prior ruling made in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, that made it mandatory for running businesses in the state to close shop on Sundays. The suit was filed by an Orthodox Jewish entrepreneur who stated that the established law had intruded into his religion since he opened his entrepreneurial store on Sundays with the aim of closing it on Saturdays, a day he attended his religious worship (Somer, 2000). The Supreme Court ruling in this matter disagreed with the explanation of the businessman, stating that the law had made his religious duty a bit difficult but not entirely impossible to observe (Farish, 1998). In the Shervert v. Verner case of 1963, the constitutional Supreme Court ruled that a Seventh - day Adventist, plaintiff in the case, relinquished from his work position for refusing to report for work on Saturdays could not be deprived of the legal unemployment reimbursement benefits. This is money that is disbursed to help individuals who have lost their jobs in America. Two principal explanations stand out to the interpretation of the Free Exercise clause (Somer, 2000): The ‘first freedoms’ explanation holds that the American congress has the power to restrict religious activities only on the basis that it has a "vital/compelling significance" carrying out such a move (Farish, 1998). This expounds that the American Congress may well not, for instance, prohibit the hallucinatory medicine peyote for the reason that it has no convincing significance (Hurst, 1997). The non-discrimination explanation holds that the American Congress may perhaps limit religious actions provided that the intention of the established law is not to limit religious actions. Beneath this explanation, the American congress can forbid the peyote on condition that the established law is not purposely written to mark a religious observation (Farish, 1998). Nonetheless, with all these interpretations trying to encapsulate the essence and meaning of the two clauses, some of which are out rightly clear and others are not, one fact still stands out: the detrimental effect of religion on the American government as pertains the enactment of the free exercise clause and the establishment clause is something that should be looked into (Inglehart, 1997). To highlight this reality, the saying, “The Separation wall between state and church”, persists to classify the accepted significance of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause constituting the first amendment (Dahl, 1998). From a courts perspective, however, there exist three admired explanations of the establishment clause's meaning: Separationism embraces the notion that the clause puts off any American government’s approval or support of religious institutions (Catholic World News, 2012). Accommodationism interpretation states that any American government that assumes to power may endorse religious establishments on condition that it handles all existing religions in America equally and by no chance portray preferential dealings with any particular religions(s) (Farish, 1998). This outlook was upheld by Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia of the American Supreme Court also upheld the outlook. Preferentialism/Christian dominionism explanation holds points that the establishment clause only puts off a literal American church from being fashioned and does not thwart any sitting American government from overtly endorsing any religion (Hurst,1997). The staunch proponents of this explanation confirm that preferentialist explanation of the establishment clause is relevant to the existing American state law (Catholic World News, 2012). In a long period of the 20th century, the American Supreme Court seized chiefly to a separationist explanation of the establishment clause (Catholic World News, 2012). Contemporary American Supreme Court rulings point toward the fact of a steady swing towards a gentle accommodationist arrangement in the coming times with respect to federal monetary support for faith-based charitable trusts, and representational or historical assertions of religious legacy (for instance, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or "in God we trust" on the American legal currency) (Dahl, 1998). In 1802 President T. Jefferson put in writing a dispatch in which he brought up the necessitation to uphold "a separation wall" between the state and religion (Farish, 1998). Cases involving the Establishment clause have also assumed this language (Seidenfeld, 1992). Observing the existing American government(s) and religion in separate spheres evidently means that the American government may not assert an official American religion, as evidenced in England where the Church of England is the official church in that country (Seidenfeld, 1992). It further emphasizes that the American government in power ceases to interfere in religious undertakings. For instance, in Watson v. Jones case of 1872, the Supreme Court in America asserted that a difference of opinion inside the Presbyterian Church could not by any chance be resoluted by the constitutionally established courts, but simply by the serving church officials. In Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral case of 1952, which implicated the Russian Orthodox Church, the court ruled that the federal administration was not to interfere in the mix-up even if church influence was being put into effect by a foreign state that was antagonistic to the United States of America (Hurst, 1997). These cases illustrate the difficulty of fairly enforcing the guarantee of freedom of religion and subsequently undermining democratic principles (Dahl, 1998). To dwell on the thesis of this research undertaking, we find a rather significant phenomenon where religion-State unions lead to discrimination of marginal religions (Scarberry et al, 2009). Prior to and all through John Locke’s moment in time, it was thorny to resolve where religion left off and government/state commenced (Cohen, 1998). The authority and control of both entities were often coalesced. As a consequence, religious entities recurrently employed the state/government force to prop up and implement their benefits and principles (Hurst, 1997). This was outright stumping of democracy in society. For example, dreadful atrocities against the Jewish nation and its heretics took place (Cohen, 1998). In another case outside America, European religious conflicts pitting the Catholic followers against their Protestant sisters and brothers took place in the 16th and 17th centuries. The Bill of human rights decoupled religious establishments from the existing states, partly for the reason that many religious establishments were vertically thinking on an absolutist mind frame. Each of these religious establishments was utterly convinced that being alone, it had a truth monopoly on and consequently enthusiastic for the existing state/government to compel this prevalent truth on other people/establishments (Danziger, 1998). Group of individuals who administrate by God’s name elevate their own individualistic inclinations to God, and consequently see no limit in commanding there ‘Godly preferences’ on other existing individuals (Mark, 2006). The recognized churches in the colonial American setting arrested, detained, tortured and at times deported real and perceived religious dissenters especially the followers of Baptist and other existing evangelical church establishments at the time (Scarberry et al, 2009). Separation of Church and the government/State, though not complete, is one of America’s utmost assistance to modern religion and political spheres (Farish, 1998). The acceptance of such a gesture as a matter of political principle symbolizes an era in the account of mankind (McConnell, 1990). Beforehand, most European wars and approximately half the interior predicaments since the beginning of Christianity and its allied establishments had a religious roots (Dahl, 1998). America put to a conclusion such religious confrontations (Inglehart, 1997). The American Government/state endeavors to force religious uniformity have been a disappointment and debacle in nature (Cohen, 1998). What authority have ecclesiastical institutions had on the American Civil society? In a number of instances, they have tried to put up a religious oppression on the Civil authority ruins; they have also taken part in instances where they have upheld the thrones of political authoritarianism; only in limited instances have they been seen as outright guardians of the American people’s liberties (Danziger, 1998). The established clerical bodies, through getting themselves integrated by the legal foundations and ingrafted into the government machinery, have for long developed a fearsome engine against the religious and civil rights of many Americans (Hurst, 1997). Men vary as pertains sensible subjects and are probably then going to concur on things invisible (Mark, 2006). Separatists’ like the Mennonites Baptists, Quakers, Methodists were out rightly opposed to institution of religion on doctrine. Furthermore, those who believed in a lock coalition connecting religion, and specifically the church and government/state (Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Congregationalist) commenced to see the principles of disjointing in cultures in which they were not dominant (Farish, 1998). The First Amendment guards religious liberties by unwelcoming religion admission to the coercive organization of the government/state. It's a straightforward and stylish agreement: “We agree not to impose our beliefs on others in order to be free from having others impose their beliefs on us. Forcing religion on people produces hostility or apathy: The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country, showed that whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs” (Farish, 1998). “Religion that is imposed upon its recipients turns out to engender either indifference or resentment” (Danziger, 1998). A number of American religious leaders have come to see that persuasion is distantly a more powerful tool than coercion (Inglehart, 1997). Not astoundingly, then, big figures of religious leaders have propped up the American Supreme Court in ruling on prayer (Seidenfeld, 1992). Imposed religion reproduces specifically what the majority fear: revolt against religious establishments, pessimism about religion and all activities allied to religious establishments, skepticism about its assertions, and, as an effect, unresponsiveness unsurpassed or utter antipathy as the most awful (Gay, 1992). Requiring sustaining for religion and its allied establishments is unjust the followers and also the perceived/real detractors: To coerce people to supply monetary contributions for the dissemination of religious views, which they might be disbelieving or have been harboring is tyrannical and sinful (Hurst, 1997). Furthermore, forcing people to support any religious aspects without their inner persuasion is absolute dispossession of their religious liberties and constitutionally embedded rights (Gay, 1992). Religion and State/government blending implicates religion and its allied establishments with government corruption and lack of transparency in the eyes of the public (Dahl, 1998). Religion in America has blended itself to be intimately associated with the government/state power in the world (Seidenfeld, 1992). Credit goes to the separation wall between the state and religion for the role it has played in the development and growth of religion on America (Danziger, 1998). This is in contrast to those European states in which religion and state machinery have come in unison resulting in massive opposition to religion by individuals who disapprove what the government (s) in power is (are) doing (Gay, 1992). One of the chief queries in a state-religion arrangement is, ‘which entity controls the other and how?’ (Seidenfeld, 1992). These and additional questions are capable of straining the religion-state affiliation almost to breach points. As a consequence, several of the clergy members might have activist disestablishments (McConnell, 1990). Separation of the two entities prevents the regime from influencing and determining in house religious policies, whether indirectly or directly, and this is the prime tutorial that should be learnt within and without the American government (Danziger, 1998). Contending for Government/state finances and monetary tips causes unwarranted frictions among religious establishments and followers who follow these religions (Inglehart, 1997). The design of America's religious assemblies combating over the inadequate public funds that have been pledged to be made accessible is detrimental and undemocratic. It is a sure road that takes the country descending down the path of sectarian competitions and such kinds of roads have disrupted an upward growth of many world states. The separation of the two, religion has helped to a certain level in sparing the American populace from these hiccups (Mark, 2006). The unsurpassed technique recognized to devastate religion and its ingrained viewpoints and doctrines, the religious affiliates and rival religious establishments aggressively fighting over a giant preserve of public money (Gay, 1992). More over, the religious groups in question, and most specifically in America have devised means of making it unfeasible in America for the established government/state set up to levy religious assets and this is absurd. The annulment between religion and more specifically Christianity and the established State/government has to be unconditional that no Church/religious property in any place, in State/nation, should be let off from equivalent taxation; if such religious groups are exempted from taxation, ideally, there exists an imposition of unwarranted imposition of tax upon the generalized community (Gay, 1992). This type of inequality in administering state policies is subject to being questioned and viewed down upon compliantly by those left with the gigantic burden of paying their taxes to the government. It is prudent to suggest that equivalent tax remittances of all property and assets, regardless of the individuals or establishments in question should be utterly embraced (Mark, 2006). Opposing Argument Democracy embraces more than handful sets of rules that have constitutional roots which are mandated with the task of guiding how a state establishment functions (Inglehart, 1997). In any established democracy, the state/government in place is regarded as one element that coexists in a complex societal fabric of varied institutions that encompass political parties, religious organizations, and even private individual associations (Seidenfeld, 1992). This assortment of relations is called pluralism. It assumptions are that the diverse establishments in the form of political parties, religious organizations, and even private individual associations that exist in a democratic the social order should not in any manner rely on dependence upon the existing government machinery for their daily existence, authority or even legitimacy (Gay, 1992). Thousands of non-governmental associations and establishments function in democratic the social orders: some are localized, and others are national. Religious assemblies and their allied establishments are such groups. Religion supplies a mediating type of societal role between persons and generated multifaceted societal and governmental/state bodies of which it is believed that they (the persons in the connection grid are part of). Filling these roles in America by the religious establishments offers persons their rightful opportunities to exercise their constitutionally entrenched rights and perform their responsibilities and duties as rightful people of a democracy. Religious establishments and other allied but diverse groups in America represent the collective interests of their members in many variant ways: they play vital roles in political campaigns, debating sessions, and more so, help a great deal in endeavoring to influence policy stances and decisions (McConnell, 1990). Through such establishments, persons have a clear leeway for meaningful and resourceful involvement both in governmental and community-based issues. The instances are numerous and varied: charitable associations and religious bodies, amalgamating with environmental organizations for various undertakings that are thought to be of benefit to the American populace. Despite these religious establishments bearing the brunt for jeopardizing the First amendments and more specifically the establishment and free exercise clauses, they still play a vital role in upholding democracy in America (Hurst, 1997). Conclusion This study was important to prove because of the various issues that sections of the American populace do not understand pertaining the relationship that exists between religion and the government (McConnell, 1990). The thesis opens up the leeway to show how religion has hindered democracy in America and more so, how it has hindered the full implementation of the First amendment that houses the establishment clause and the free exercise clause (Danziger, 1998). The most vital lesson to be leant in the thesis is that the American government should not be blamed alone on this matter (Hirst, 1997). Religion has similarly played a key role in jeopardizing the realization of the first amendment fruits, which include prevailing of democratic principles in America (Seidenfeld, 1992). One should therefore be aware of the numerous loopholes that exist in society, and specifically in the religious quarters and how these quarters violate the first amendment in collaboration with the government establishment (Mark, 2006). It would also be prudent to question the existing religious leaders on their role in undermining democratic principles as stipulated in the first amendment clauses (Hirst, 1997). References Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Summary and Analysis. Grade saver.1999. Retrieved March 14, 2012 from: http://www.gradesaver.com/democracy-in-america/study-guide/section6/ Cohen, Joshua. Democracy and Liberty, in Jon Elster, ed. Deliberative Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Catholic World News. US federal court rejects separation of church and state. 2005-12-22. Retrieved March 14th 2012 from: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=41403 Dahl, Robert, A. On Democracy. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. 1998 Danziger, James, N. Understanding the Political World: A Comparative Introduction to Political Science, 4th ed. New York: Longman. 1998. Farish, Leah. The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, and the Press. Hillside, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1998. Gay, Kathlyn. Church and State: Government and Religion in the United States. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook Press, 1992. Hirst, Mike. Freedom of Belief. New York, NY: Franklin Watts, 1997. Inglehart, Ronald. Modernization and Post modernization. Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton University Press, 1997. McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, Harvard Law Review 103 (1990): 1409-1437. Mark, David H. Jeffersonian Walls and Madisonian Lines: The Supreme Court’s Use of History in Religion Clause Cases, Oregon Law Review (2006), 85: 563-614. Preuss, U. Perspectives of Democracy and the Rule of Law. Journal of Law and Society, (1991): 18 (3): 353–364 Scarberry, Mark S. John Leland and James Madison. Religious Influence on the Ratification of the Constitution and on the Proposal of the Bill of Rights. Penn State Law Review (2009): 113 (3): 733–800. Seidenfeld, Mark. A Civic Republican Justification for the Bureaucratic State. Harvard Law Review (1992) 105:1511-1557. Sommer. C. Joseph. Church and state .2010. Retrieved March 14, 2012 from: http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/church_&_state.htm Read More