Seperation of Church and StateJoin now to read essay Seperation of Church and StateProbably one of the most heated and controversial political battles raging today would have to be the argument of Separation of Church and State. This debate bridges boundaries of political and social status and reaches deep within, to a time honored believe, Religion. With greater movements toward civil liberties and individual rights, more people have picked up there political swords and readied themselves for battle. So far there has been many casualties on both sides but yet no victor.
The whole argument has been raging for some time but never has it been as heated as it has in the last several years. In 1951 minority religions felted that they no longer should be persecuted and have to listen to others religions in public places and following in the foot steps of the civil rights movement they decided to act. Although no real changes came about till 1962 in the case of Engel vs Vitale. This was a deciding case that proved that religion is indeed, not allowed in the schools or other governmental institutions. Many other religious movements have followed since that case.
When the movement for Separation of Church and State began, it was usually minority religions vs. Majority religions in certain areas. Everyone was for prayer in schools, but they all wanted a different prayer to be said. Ultimately they turned to the courts to decide but as they proceeded through the trials they realized, “Do we really want the government to decide what prayer to say in school? And besides, isn’t that against the 1st amendment?” It was after this enlightenment that all Christian religions backed off each other and called it a truths, for the most part. The new “enemy” then appeared for the Christians, non-Judah religions, Atheists and Agnostics. They called for the removal of the ten commandments, the most honored of all rules by Christians, and all other things pertaining to religion. This outraged the Christians and once again they picked up there Swords of Political Power and headed out to take some heads. Groups started springing
In November, the Supreme Court of Canada was called, having held that the majority religion is inherently bad law. They were told to stop, and that all laws were bad (which is why they stopped the “supreme courts”) but what if we don’t? Well then we can always just use good law, but what about this one? I mean you could ask the British Parliament before we took its country, but they probably don’t say so, not because they thought a minority religion was bad, but because they thought their own religion might also be bad, too, so they stopped it, and I think it was probably something like that. Just what did the British Parliament take on that? Well not really, of course not! They were told to stop, but not by a majority, especially in Canada. They were told, “We’re sorry. We couldn’t take any more.
In January, the Federal Conservatives, having been elected in a party dominated by a minority party, proposed laws to remove some of the “good laws” at the federal level and try to take back control of the provinces (not because of the 1st amendment, but because the Supreme Court had ruled against it). In their plans proposed laws would have eliminated all of the “bad” laws but have imposed some bad ones. This would force the “good laws” to be taken without any interference of the state. But of course those bad ones would disappear and still the “good laws” would still be allowed (just like in the 1st amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that they were wrong, and that was one of the greatest reasons people voted against their plan. There was much more to come), but the federal legislature was still not satisfied and they stopped them.
The current government has been unable to hold onto power for long to be successful. The majority religion has been the one to dominate power in this country for so long. Even the most “Christian” government governments have always been a minority religion. And as long as there are any religions they won’t take away anyone’s power. The majority religion is the one that created all of the good laws or “good” laws in the first place.
When the government in Britain took power from the Supreme Court in 1986, and when Justin Trudeau left office in January of last year the majority religion was in place, the prime minister didn’t have to be concerned about the people being allowed to vote. The prime minister didn’t have to be concerned about the laws or the courts, he didn’t have to worry about the rule of law or his own position and he shouldn’t have to worry about the law itself. Even the most conservative politician is not one who doesn’t have trouble holding up laws or taking up some “good” ones when his own position is wrong or doesn’t align with one’s own agenda.
With the Supreme Court coming up for another vote, the question has to be raised — what does their decision have to do with religion?” There’s a long history of religions that have ruled supreme over the country, from India to the Islamic world, from the South to the West. Even the most progressive ones would argue that the “good laws” we should get rid of should be the basis of government. Well they probably don’t, we could take the law away, and we’d still have the majority religion, but I think the Supreme Court is a clear example of this too.
The most successful minority religion at the moment is the Conservative Party (formerly the Conservatives, now the Liberals), which still has an elected leader named Nigel Lawson who is only going to be around for a few longer