A Wall of Separation between Law and Religion - Term Paper Example

A “Wall of Separation” between law and religion Dawn Watson CM-107-02 Introduction Federal court decrees cover immensely varied topics ranging from criminal justice measures to racial balance and education reforms to religious freedom which are aimed to bring political and social changes in the society. Judicial interpretations of the actual text of the United States Constitution particularly the First Amendment received appreciations as well as apprehensions from various socio-religious sectors of the American society. Whether the “First Amendment” demands a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state or is an extra-constitutional construct needs to be analyzed in the light of a decision delivered by 6th Circuit U.S Court of Appeals in upholding a Kentucky county’s right to display the Ten Commandments (United States Court of Appeals, 2005). It also calls for a more historical approach to the interpretation of First Amendment in the light of many judicial distortions and misinformation of the document. Criticism of First Amendment: The history of the United States is replete with governmental acknowledgement, and in some cases accommodation, of religion. The national motto “IN GOD WE TRUST” of the United States first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin, which was officially adopted in 1956, clearly proves that the government is not atheist.(Facts sheet, 2007) The First Amendment States that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The Establishment Clause represents one of America’s most cherished safeguards and is also most heavily litigated. Time and again there are allegations that “the courts and their civil-libertarian allies have waged a relentless battle to drive the words and symbols of traditional faith from the nation’s discourse.” (Stanton, M., 1996) The main focus was not only the public schools, where prayer, Bible reading, and display of the Ten Commandments have all been banished, but extends to other venues also. The common view is that “from the first day of the United States until today, the Supreme Court has been pivotal in interpreting our Constitution and shaping our republic.” (Land Mark Supreme Court Cases, 2007). In the opinion of Justice Hugo Black and others, the Founding Fathers sought to raise an impregnable ‘wall of separation’ between government and religious faith when they adopted the First Amendment. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson is considered as the first to cite the term “wall of separation” in a message to the Danbury Baptists. Jefferson further emphasized his point through a letter to a Presbyterian clergy that “I consider the government to the United States as interdicted from meddling with religious institutions; certainly no power over religious discipline has been delegated to the general government.”(Stanton, M., 1996) In the view of James Madison, the founder figure in the history of American Supreme Court along with Thomas Jefferson, “many of the religious conflicts came from the church seeking political power at the same time that the state sought to manipulate religious believers by offering them money” (Madison, 1785). Ironically, American judiciary, the vehicle of social transformation, turned to transgress its boundaries with deliberate interference to decide the role of religion in the American social order. Keeping religion, law, and politics in their independent domain is the practical approach to maintain a cordial environment for any social transformation. Religious freedom is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the Constitution’s First Amendment Religious autonomy and history of Constitution: The architects of religious autonomy generally argue that an establishment of religion had a well known and definite meaning for members of the founding generation. On the contrary, religious experiments in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, by Baptist Roger Williams and the Quaker William Penn respectively, illustrate an ancient American model of separating religion and state. In the American model it is believed that both religion and the political community prospered best when the state refrained from involving itself in religious matters, and where religion did not vie with each other for government revenues and support. Public schools should seek to create an environment conducive to learning by all students and not act as vehicles proselytizing for religious or anti-religious beliefs. (The ACLU and Freedom of Religion and Belief, 2006) While explaining his recommendation for amendments to the Constitution, Madison opined “the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established…It means that Congress shall not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.” (Stanton, M., 1996). The draft law proposed in the Virginia House of Delegates, in 1785, to establish a provision for teachers of the Christian Religion is cited as the most important developments in American religious liberty. Philanthropists like James Madison criticized and opposed the “funding bill” describing it as an effort to establishing religion and “interfering with freedom of conscience.”(Madison, 1785) Madison visualized that interfere of state in religious activities prevented creativity of these institutions, and this insight establishes his role as the successful drafter of Fist Amendment to the Constitution. Rationale for freedom of religion: It is essential to protect the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, the right to practice religion or no religion at all, by keeping the government out of religion. “Compared to other industrialized democracies, religion plays a prominent role in American public life.” (The ACLU and Freedom of Religion and Belief. 2006). One of the most frequently raised questions is the role of religion in public schools. Children are free to pray, learn, and debate on religious themes in public schools, but schools themselves should not engage in promoting particular religious beliefs or activities. An analysis of the decision delivered by 6th Circuit U.S Court of Appeals in upholding a Kentucky county’s right to display the Ten Commandments reveals that there were criticism and laurels for judges from the day First Amendment was promulgated. In the recent past Justice Warren Earl Burger was much in the lime light to be criticized by many. But, in the words of President Clinton, “Justice Burger as chief justice, he was concerned with the administration of the court, serving with enthusiasm and always making sure it was above reproach”. (Burger, 2006) Whereas, Justice Everson received full of accolade as he is considered as the founder of the “Establishment Clause” which is the yard stick to actions of state governments. (In Everson v. Board of Education, 1947) His ruling on New Jersey’s reimbursement to parents of parochial and private school students, for the cost of busing their children to school, were upheld because the assistance went to the child, not the church. In the opinion of Gary North (1983) In the domestic policy, American lawmakers have abandoned the basically Christian restrains of the Constitution for a centralized planning bureaucratic monstrosity, which seeks to play God with the economy, society, the education of our children, and even the functioning of the institutional church and the family. This clearly shows apprehensions of people with respect to judicial intervention in their religious freedom. Conclusion: Whatever the criticism the judiciary receives, we have to tread on the path of James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, who exhorted us to “arm ourselves with the power that knowledge gives” (Madison, 1785). Public schools have to “create an environment conducive to learning by all students and not act as vehicles proselytizing for religious or anti-religious beliefs.” (The ACLU and Freedom of Religion and Belief, 2006). Although America pioneered the famous ‘separation of church and state’ this separation will not allow us to overlook the enormously powerful influence religion has on American politics. We can see that the separation was aimed towards freedom of religion, not freedom for religion. Thus, time has proved the wisdom of Madison’s analytical acumen to keep religion and law in separate enclosures, and the ‘Wall of Separation’ is effective to uphold freedom of religion from judicial interference. Reference Armstrong, C. Virginia. (2003, February 21) Impeach Earl Warren: The Warren Court’s Legacy Fifty Years Later, Part I. Court Watch, Vol. 5, No. 2.. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from < http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watch/alerts/2003/feb03/02-21-03Brief.shtml > Burger, Elvera S. (2006, August 19). Warren Earl Burger: Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Arlington National Cemetery Website. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from Evans, M. Stanton., (1996) The Theme is Freedom: Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition. New York: Regnery Publishing, Fact Sheets: Currency & coins.( 2007) History of ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’: United States Department of the Treasury. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from Jordan, James B., & North, Gary. (Ed.) (1983). Christianity & Civilization. The Theology of Christian Resistance. Geneva Divinity School. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from Land Mark Supreme Court Cases. Bill of Rights Institute. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from Madison, James. (1785). The Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from The ACLU and Freedom of Religion and Belief. (2006, November). ACLU. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from United States Court of Appeals: For the Sixth Circuit. (2005, December 20). Recommended for Full-Text Publications. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from Read More