Separation
of church and state definition
Resorting
to name calling EdenOne? Because of a different
point of view, how beneath you. I see you didn’t bother to mention Article 2
America:
The principle that government must
maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. Many view separation of
church and state as required by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any
religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially
recognizing or favoring any religion.
Note:
The relationship between church and state has been extremely controversial
since the first settlers arrived in America to escape religious persecution in Europe, and many cases involving the issue
have reached the Supreme Court.
Separation of church and state
The separation of church and state
is implied in the 1st amendment with "Congress shall make no law
respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This means that the state cannot force children to go to a public school or
have a state based church. This is to protect everyone's religious views to the
extent it does not harm another.
Recent events have indicated the existence and influence of a historical
revisionism movement designed to marginalize and deny the constitutional
principle of the separation of church and state. Through the works of
evangelists such as David Barton and his "Wall builders" organization,
books, movies, and seminars are used to present a highly selective and biased
account of the founding period of this country. The purpose is to mislead the
public into believing that government and religion were intended from the
beginning to be mixed, and that an evil cabal of politicians and judges have
somehow cheated us out of a "Christian nation" to which we must
return. Designed to be impressive-sounding to a public otherwise unfamiliar
with early American history, this misleading information is used as
"sound-bites" in publicity campaigns and public arguments in favor of
increased religious intrusion into government affairs.
The truth, however uncomfortable it may be to those whose religious faith
needs government support, is different. It is true that the debate over the
relationship between state and church was heated, and this was a major issue
which motivated many to oppose the ratification of our country's Constitution.
History, however, clearly records the prevailing philosophy, and it was determined
that our government must not only be separate and isolated from religious faith
and practice, but that this arrangement was a necessary component of true
religious freedom.
This is the view of credible historians, academics, legal commentators, judges,
and the Founding Fathers themselves. However important, and to what degree
these people held their own personal religious beliefs, they agree that such
practices are a private affair, and that one cannot be free to hold and
practice their own religion, unless they are free from having someone else's
beliefs imposed upon them. This is the essence of the separation of church and
state: freedom *from* government-imposed religion. It is this principle, and
not the doctrines of any particular faith, that form the basis for the peace
that America has enjoyed from the spiritual tyrannies and violence that plague
other parts of the world to this day.
When the general welfare or common
good of the society is jeopardized by a practice, as legislators claimed about
polygamy when writing this law, then that practice is not protected by the Free
Exercise Clause. This general principle was refined in a 1940 case involving
religious evangelism by members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian
denomination known for its door-to-door proselytization. The town of New Haven,
Connecticut had passed a law requiring that all religious groups register with
the town before soliciting residents at their homes. Jesse Cantwell and his son
were arrested
For disturbing the peace by
soliciting without a permit, and they challenged the law. The
Supreme
Court ruled that the registration requirements were unconstitutional because
they unfairly disadvantaged religious believers, and because they required
government officials to determine which messages were religious and which were
not. This case,
Cantwell
v. Connecticut
,
The first time the Court used the
First and Fourteenth Amendments together to invalidate a state law; thanks to
the Court’s reliance on precedent, the federal Free Exercise Clause would
henceforth apply to all state laws. The Supreme Court set an important new
accommodationist standard for evaluating free exercise cases in 1963, when it
upheld the right of Adeil Sherbet, a
member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, to refuse to work on
Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith. The state of South Carolina offered
unemployment benefits only to persons who actively seek employment, and since
she would not work on Saturdays the state did not consider her to be actively
looking for work. In ruling for Ms. Sherbet, the Supreme Court announced a new
test it would apply to future such cases: if a law creates a “substantial
burden” upon a person’s religious practice, it must be justified by a
“compelling state interest” in applying the law with equal force. Absent such
interest, the state must accommodate the religious practice by exempting it
from the law in question.
International:
Reference: Encyclopedia of the United Nations and
International Agreements
This week and next we
have an opportunity to see how Pope Francis’ representatives around the world
behave. As the world’s leaders gather in New York at the United Nations General
Assembly, Francis’ diplomats will be among them. This is vitally important
because the Vatican, as the Holy See,
has a special status at the UN, above that of any other religion. This
status and its implications for public policy are addressed in a new
three-minute movie that shows exactly what happens when the lines between
religion and public policy are blurred.
