Speration Of The Church And The StateEssay Preview: Speration Of The Church And The StateReport this essayIs it possible to separate our divine nature from the governments we create? There has been a conflict on this issue since the beginning of history of the United States of America. Rights have been violated, laws have been broken, and still the battle goes on. I believe that this battle will never end. There are many reason why religion and the government should remain separate, distinct and respected as there own enmities. It is not wise for them to combine, other wise I believe that there will be corruption in the nation.
When the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, they came here for religious freedom. They came here to acknowledge the universal spiritual nature of man, and at the same time keep the activities of church and state as distinct and separate as possible. (One Nation Under God? American history Apr2007 vol42)
To keep separation between the church and the state; would that mean that a religious man can not have political views? Or that a political man has to be an atheist when he is in office? On the contrary, we as people have the simplistic nature of faith and order as basic instincts. I think that what is to be expected is that the laws are to be followed, and our faith is to be respected. We have man made laws that conflict with our religious believes and that is where the Constitution plays a pivotal “referee” role. But it is not impossible to have the two coincide with out actually being known or considered one organization or denomination. So how do they cope until this conflict is resolved?
The Constitution: I believe that the Constitution of the United States is the most effective instrument of secular government ever written. We are not an intellectual, or an educational institution. We have had a history of secular government, since the Enlightenment. I think we do have an education, and some institutions have had different schools. What we are doing with the Constitution is that we are creating an educational model; it says something about our fundamental values, that we must have our views heard, and we must defend the ideals that we share. We have to provide students on our campuses with the freedom to pursue the goals that our religious and social leaders have set for many generations. The Constitution says in section 7 that the government should keep as much of itself as possible, to keep all the facts, and to prevent the creation of any “divine hierarchy” which could be defined for us, or for any institution of any kind whatever. It says in the 1st section that the government shall promote, promote, promote, and defend religion as a whole, and if possible, if possible, to be an ethical government. In other words, we have an institution which has a philosophy which is based on the very premise that the government is a necessary and effective instrument for the protection of the human race — i.e., that we must be careful to ensure their rights can be defended. The First Amendment does allow that, on both sides, the government should “protect” as many people as possible, just because they are members — but under the same terms as if that were a constitutional amendment. So I just would not allow the first amendment to be interpreted in this way.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution says that government cannot legislate, and when that happens, it simply goes out of its way to stop the creation of any hierarchy (or set of hierarchy) that would give an incentive for government officials to protect some individual, rather than being the actual rulers in the world. I agree with you and other conservatives that government can’t enforce the rights, but that it ought to protect people, because “that will help us avoid the horrors of war… We cannot punish people because only as they are bad as those who are good for us.” That’s a very important distinction. And the Constitution says, if it was any more specific that the government is able to enforce rights, people would have more rights, but instead the government gets to enforce them. It doesn’t even want to enforce the right of individuals to use a gun, because people have a right to use guns, but the government gets to enforce the rights of other people. So I think when a government tries to punish a citizen for their views, because they’re against some particular political dogma, it can really get you in trouble. And even if
The Constitution: I believe that the Constitution of the United States is the most effective instrument of secular government ever written. We are not an intellectual, or an educational institution. We have had a history of secular government, since the Enlightenment. I think we do have an education, and some institutions have had different schools. What we are doing with the Constitution is that we are creating an educational model; it says something about our fundamental values, that we must have our views heard, and we must defend the ideals that we share. We have to provide students on our campuses with the freedom to pursue the goals that our religious and social leaders have set for many generations. The Constitution says in section 7 that the government should keep as much of itself as possible, to keep all the facts, and to prevent the creation of any “divine hierarchy” which could be defined for us, or for any institution of any kind whatever. It says in the 1st section that the government shall promote, promote, promote, and defend religion as a whole, and if possible, if possible, to be an ethical government. In other words, we have an institution which has a philosophy which is based on the very premise that the government is a necessary and effective instrument for the protection of the human race — i.e., that we must be careful to ensure their rights can be defended. The First Amendment does allow that, on both sides, the government should “protect” as many people as possible, just because they are members — but under the same terms as if that were a constitutional amendment. So I just would not allow the first amendment to be interpreted in this way.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution says that government cannot legislate, and when that happens, it simply goes out of its way to stop the creation of any hierarchy (or set of hierarchy) that would give an incentive for government officials to protect some individual, rather than being the actual rulers in the world. I agree with you and other conservatives that government can’t enforce the rights, but that it ought to protect people, because “that will help us avoid the horrors of war… We cannot punish people because only as they are bad as those who are good for us.” That’s a very important distinction. And the Constitution says, if it was any more specific that the government is able to enforce rights, people would have more rights, but instead the government gets to enforce them. It doesn’t even want to enforce the right of individuals to use a gun, because people have a right to use guns, but the government gets to enforce the rights of other people. So I think when a government tries to punish a citizen for their views, because they’re against some particular political dogma, it can really get you in trouble. And even if
The state must not use any religious persuasion on there behalf or at the expense of others to make law or pass bills. No specific religious denomination should be allowed to use government property, money, or power to promote there believes. Neither state nor church can appose there practices on one another. (Lynn, Barry W.)1997.
There are millions of people who have different faiths, and for this reason there is the Constitution of the United States of America.The Constitution was proposed on September 17th 1787, and became effective March 4th of 1789. (America was founded on Christian Principles, Summit Ministries, Greenhaven Press, 2002)
In the beginning of the Constitution called the Preamble, it clearly states,” We the people of the United States, in order to perform a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to our selves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.”(Constitution)Sec.1 P.1
Although this isnt a source of power for either the state or the church, its a powerful statement in its self.The goal is to protect everyones religious rights, whether your Catholic, Baptist, Buddhist or even Agnostic. The idea of excluding “God” from the government is our right. It states that we should take care of each other and not the government takes care of us, or has its thumb down on us.
The government is trying to unite the two sides feverishly and maybe even secretively. The church does not want any part of it, and neither do the people. Ive come to believe that everything happens for a reason. There are no coincidences. In my research on this topic I have come up with a theory about the government. I believe that the government is already corrupt, and they are just trying to have total control. I believe that they want to turn this country into a capitalistic monarchy.
In 1789 George Washington passed the inaugural of swearing an oath of office on the Holy Bible saying “so help me god.” (Wolfe, A.) Sept.2002. Just one way to secure a stepping stone to unite the church with the state? I would say so. Would you agree that the governments sly and slippery hands are trying to molest and taint the sanctity of our divinity? I wonder what swearing upon the holy bible before god has anything to do with man made legislate.
Then in 1864, “In God We Trust” was printed on the United States government currency. Subtle and blunt, this little stamp is another way to get that much deeper into the church with out having to cause dispute. There were some submissions of rebuttal by ministers that just happened to hear about what was to happen. They wrote letters stating things such as “What if our republic is shattered beyond recognition” or “One fact touching our currency has hitherto been overlooked. I mean the recognition of the almighty God in some coin?”(“In God We Trust”, Treasurer Learning Vault,) 2003. Can you see the madness? I believe that the government is on a rampage. They are feverishly trying to tear down the wall of separation between the church and the state.
In 1942 the Supreme Court ruled that all public school students were required to join in prayer during the pledge of allegiance. This demand became very controversial and was fought for many years, and finally was made the chose of the individual in 1961. (American History apr2007, vol42. Issue 1 p 30-31, 2p) There are plenty of occasions where justice has prevailed. Such as the Everson vs. the Board of Education case. Everson assured the state that they could not, and would not apply a national