The Separation of Church and State
This concept has been adopted in many countries, but the degree of separation depends on applicable legal structures and prevailing views towards proper role of religion in a certain society issues…
Download file to see previous pages...
The Separation of Church and State
The separation of church and state is distancing the relationship of the organized religion and the nation. The second reason is that the church might harm the state by starting a war because of wrongful religious convictions. The state also can harm the church when it dictates on religious ceremonies or by forcing religious leaders on civic matters that offend the church. There are 4 kinds of power: Physical, wealth, influence and authority. These powers can be misused in controlling others and can be dangerous when combined. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely hence no one should have this kind power hence the need to separate the two entities. With the separation of church and state, religious leaders should not have no right to interfere in policy decisions made by the government. It is actually inappropriate for policies by the government to be based solely on religious beliefs and doctrines.
This does not mean that officials in the government should abandon their faith to take part in the political process or that it is wrong to take up moral and religious values in politics. Moral dimensions also exist in both social and public policies including budgets which are inherent moral documents. Decisions such as tax increments and public spending affect the society and reflect a community’s priorities. Policy decision that affects peoples’ lives such as laws condemning murder and theft are rooted from religious teachings and are shared broadly across secular and religious lines. However, a public official has no right to base decisions or cite religious beliefs as a reason for failure to uphold the duties and responsibilities of their office. Religious leaders should only advice or be consulted but not having a seat at the decision table. They can comment, condemn or support the policies but only as the church’s opinion and not as the general public’s. The Family brought a fresh perspective on influential evangelists such as Charles Finney, Jonathan Edwards and Billy Graham. The book also gives a new understanding of leaders including Senators Sam Brownback and Hillary Clinton and former senator Dan Coats, Jack Kemps and religious right leaders Chuck Colson, Ted Haggard and Bill Bright. In the book, we learn how the legislative precedent for George Bush’s faith initiative was brought up by ideas from The Family and was sponsored by Family members, Republican Senators Ashcroft and Coats with assistance from Hillary Clinton. According to Sharlet (29), the author of The Family, members of this organization rarely step out of the shadows but only on one public event, the Prayer Breakfast which is annually hosted in the Whitehouse. When the government is lobbying efforts of most religious institutions, their activities are usually done in the darkness even as people of numerous influences routinely pressure lawmakers on issues ranging from international relations to healthcare or abortion rights to poverty. This was designed by the government when congress passed the Lobbying Disclosure Act in 1995 (Sharlet 15). The act provided a few exceptions including lobbying communications done by a church. The separation of state and the church is very important to the American government, but it is usually vague and murky. Americans want their legislators to pass good laws that result in a good society and good citizenship. Religious leaders do not have two perspectives of good, one secular and one religious. A legislator has to believe in the
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Ultimately, Jefferson believed that the relationship that a person has with God is highly personal. By extension, having a legislature that seeks to enact laws and policies that dictate how the nation should worship God would in fact interfere with a person’s personal relationship with god.
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?
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.
(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
The study leads to the conclusion that the great Western religious traditions call for the denial of the self. Life in God's presence means, basically, a life lived in the knowledge that we owe the reality of our existence not to an accident but to Divine Will. The compulsions that knowledge creates we can never fulfill, which is why the religious life is a life of determined.
The debates mainly arose due to the notion that there has been a separation between the Church and State in past, which is currently being eliminated. Some religious groups feel that the State is imposing other religious beliefs on them. This essay focuses on the issue of separation of State and Church.
3 Pages(750 words)Thesis
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic The Separation of Church and State for FREE!