psychomonkey62
07-31-2007, 10:42 AM
It's not really an Atheist paper, but still....
And it won't be the best thing you've ever read. I'm only a freshman in High School, soon to be a sophomore. :p This was my freshmen paper.
In the past, European religious wars have resulted in the death of millions of people. (Jayne) This is but one of numerous reasons that church and state should be separated in the United States. Secularism is the safest, most intelligent policy. Despite this, integration of church and state exists today in the United States, regardless of the unconstitutionality of dong so, and the suffering it causes. Secularism results in safety, tolerance, and allows religion to flourish.
In spite of the positive consequences of secularism, previously in history, deadly conflicts have resulted from religious differences. According to an online article, “Religious strife and repression with all their bloody consequences have been present in the West where there was no wall [between church and state]” (Jayne). Although wars are terrible enough, other horrible crimes are committed as the result of a church ruling government. Allen Jayne expresses concern over this by saying, “Churches frequently used the force of the state to promote and enforce their interests and doctrines. This caused horrendous atrocities against Jews and heretics” (Jayne). This demonstrates how dangerous combining church and state rule can be. Discrimination is the result. Though despite the detrimental consequences, numerous laws and displays represent attempted integration of church and state.
Primary examples of these attempts are “Blue Laws,” which are laws that prohibit certain items from being sold in stores on Sunday, including alcohol. Sarah E Zylstra states that: “Sunday closing laws have been around in America/ since the 13 original colonies” (Zylstra). This demonstrates just how outdated these laws are. In addition, in the eight states that still possess statewide blue laws, numerous exceptions greatly decrease their effect. (Zylstra) So while certain strict Christians believe that these laws
are helping society, non-Christians and even several Christians found them silly, archaic, and legalistic. (Zylstra) Along with Blue Laws, public display of religion by the government is imposing religion on others as well. Rather than be content with teaching the Ten Commandments in their churches, synagogues, and homes, many are interested in playing theological hide-and-seek to sneak the Commandments onto public buildings and monuments. (Flowers) There is no point in doing so. Religion should be kept inside homes and private locations of worship. Public display by the government makes minorities feel oppressed, and truly does no good to individual displaying it, anyway. In addition these laws and displays being quite pointless, they also obviously violate the laws set forth by our Constitution.
There are a multitude of reasons why the combining of church and state, whether by laws or actions taken by the government is unconstitutional. According to Dan Barker, “The U.S Constitution is a secular document. It begins ‘We the people’ and contains no mention of ‘God’ or Christianity.” (Barker) This means that America is not a “Christian nation,” regardless of various religious citizens who believe so. This argument is further evidenced by examining Thomas Jefferson, a founding father of this country. An analysis of the Constitution reveals that “Jefferson made two separations: governmental law from church or religious sources and public education from church influence.” (Jayne) Jefferson knew the consequences of integrating church and state, and wisely avoided it. An example of separation in the Constitution can be exhibited by the “Lemon Test,” a test prepared to ensure that laws are secular in nature:
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with religion. (Flowers)
This test, established after the Supreme Court case “Lemon v. Kurtzman,” demonstrates that [I]all laws with a religious purpose are, in fact, unconstitutional and have no place in the United States legal system. Obviously, when the basis of our country’s laws states that laws with a religious nature are harmful, its regulations should be respected. Even when disregarding all laws, America was still founded on the principal of religious freedom.
Religious freedom is much different than religious toleration, however. Numerous American citizens believe that the United States is a country of religious toleration. This is incorrect. The United States practices religious freedom. The difference between the two is demonstrated by Ron Flowers: “Religious freedom means that the government has no say in whether a religion may exist in the country.” (Flowers) The founders of America created a country of religious freedom, not toleration. Nevertheless, religious fanatics intend to merely tolerate minority religions, when they should allow them to be free, grow, and flourish, just as they desire their own religion to. Simply tolerating is unlawful and leads to confusion. This in turn harms everyone, including the church.
If the United States practiced religious and government integration, the result would be considerable confusion and conflict. Reasoning for this declaration can be found in Ron Flowers’ statement, “The more the state does the work of the church, the less relevant the church will become.” (Flowers) If the government could impose religion, then the church would grow to be less important, and would give an excess of power to the government. This would certainly harm the church. In addition, as evidenced before, religious conflict is capable of escalating into full, bloody wars. These conflicts would not occur if religion is private, and not promoted by government. The founders of America realized this. As a result, they wrote the Constitution as it is today. If they had not, whose God or religion would it be in our government? Catholic or Protestant, Jewish or Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist? (Jayne) Masses of antidisestablishmentarian Christians believe that they do not want separation of church and state. In reality, they do not want separation of Christianity and state. They assume that Christianity would be the primary governmental religion. As a result of this uncertainty, if the government ever exercised religious and government unity, general confusion and a decrease in the church’s power would ensue.
Regardless of these horrific consequences, countless citizens actually want the government to promote their beliefs. However, the government should help keep the citizens’ beliefs intact, not impose their own. Flowers argues, “Not everyone believes in God the same way; some do not believe at all. But they are all Americans. They are all entitled to religious freedom” (Flowers). Since there are so many different beliefs in America, supporting a single religion would be unfair. However, ignoring history, law, and fairness, several fanatics are attempting to turn America into a Christian nation. (Barker) Common sense highlights religious and governmental division as the finest choice, however. Although desired by a few, amalgamation of church and state would harm the nation in tremendous ways, as demonstrated by history. Conversely, division greatly reduces conflict, and encourages toleration.
Numerous religious individuals believe that government neutrality is harmful to religion, when in fact, it is the opposite. As Ron Flowers states, “People often ask me why, given that I am a Christian and ordained minister; I am such an advocate for separation of church and state. The answer, of course, is: because I am a Christian and ordained minister.” (Flowers) As stated, even an extremely religious individual is an advocate for separation of religion and government. This is because religion is free from constraints when it is not affected by government. Continuing with what Flowers states, “I take my faith very seriously. For faith to be insulated from the corroding influences of government and politics is a good thing.” (Flowers) Again stated by a minister, religion can develop and thrive when not suppressed by politics. It is actually deeply harmed by governmental influence, and if independent from governmental pressure, is allowed to grow and flourish.
In the United States, separation of church and state has proven itself time and time again to be the safer, more functional policy in the United States. This is evidenced by the fact that, “In times of crisis, minority religions have supported the government.” (Jayne) This support, which is caused by equal treatment to all, results in a stabilized and productive atmosphere. In contrast, including a single religion in politics would anger the minority and turn them against the government. Thomas Jefferson stated in 1808 that this ‘wall’ of church and state separation has brought us ‘quiet’ and ‘comfort,’ or religious peace. Not only is it un-American for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advocate religion, someone is offended. (Jayne) The best government policy is undoubtedly one of religious neutrality. And not only is unification of these two concepts against the laws and morals of our country, it is completely unnecessary. John Locke once stated that “People are not morally incompetent. They can find right and wrong on their own, independent of any church, scripture, clergy, King anointed by God, or noble.” (Jayne) Citizens of America are able to distinguish between “right” and “wrong” on their own. They do not need a religious official to tell them what is moral and what is not. Because of the uselessness and unconstitutionality of religious and governmental integration, government neutrality on religion is unquestionably the wisest policy for the United States to practice.
In the United States today, it is clear that separation of church and state is the best policy, despite many antidisestablishmentarians’ beliefs. And although integration of church and state exists today in the United States, it is unconstitutional, and in reality harms religion. Separation is extremely beneficial to all, and helps religion to flourish. Why should countless people be excluded and discriminated against, just for the sake of a tiny number of religious fanatics? These fanatics believe that, despite logic, fairness, history, and plain common sense, turning the United States into a “Christian nation” would be beneficial to them. This is untrue. United States secularism is one of the most important components of this country, and will always continue to be.
And it won't be the best thing you've ever read. I'm only a freshman in High School, soon to be a sophomore. :p This was my freshmen paper.
In the past, European religious wars have resulted in the death of millions of people. (Jayne) This is but one of numerous reasons that church and state should be separated in the United States. Secularism is the safest, most intelligent policy. Despite this, integration of church and state exists today in the United States, regardless of the unconstitutionality of dong so, and the suffering it causes. Secularism results in safety, tolerance, and allows religion to flourish.
In spite of the positive consequences of secularism, previously in history, deadly conflicts have resulted from religious differences. According to an online article, “Religious strife and repression with all their bloody consequences have been present in the West where there was no wall [between church and state]” (Jayne). Although wars are terrible enough, other horrible crimes are committed as the result of a church ruling government. Allen Jayne expresses concern over this by saying, “Churches frequently used the force of the state to promote and enforce their interests and doctrines. This caused horrendous atrocities against Jews and heretics” (Jayne). This demonstrates how dangerous combining church and state rule can be. Discrimination is the result. Though despite the detrimental consequences, numerous laws and displays represent attempted integration of church and state.
Primary examples of these attempts are “Blue Laws,” which are laws that prohibit certain items from being sold in stores on Sunday, including alcohol. Sarah E Zylstra states that: “Sunday closing laws have been around in America/ since the 13 original colonies” (Zylstra). This demonstrates just how outdated these laws are. In addition, in the eight states that still possess statewide blue laws, numerous exceptions greatly decrease their effect. (Zylstra) So while certain strict Christians believe that these laws
are helping society, non-Christians and even several Christians found them silly, archaic, and legalistic. (Zylstra) Along with Blue Laws, public display of religion by the government is imposing religion on others as well. Rather than be content with teaching the Ten Commandments in their churches, synagogues, and homes, many are interested in playing theological hide-and-seek to sneak the Commandments onto public buildings and monuments. (Flowers) There is no point in doing so. Religion should be kept inside homes and private locations of worship. Public display by the government makes minorities feel oppressed, and truly does no good to individual displaying it, anyway. In addition these laws and displays being quite pointless, they also obviously violate the laws set forth by our Constitution.
There are a multitude of reasons why the combining of church and state, whether by laws or actions taken by the government is unconstitutional. According to Dan Barker, “The U.S Constitution is a secular document. It begins ‘We the people’ and contains no mention of ‘God’ or Christianity.” (Barker) This means that America is not a “Christian nation,” regardless of various religious citizens who believe so. This argument is further evidenced by examining Thomas Jefferson, a founding father of this country. An analysis of the Constitution reveals that “Jefferson made two separations: governmental law from church or religious sources and public education from church influence.” (Jayne) Jefferson knew the consequences of integrating church and state, and wisely avoided it. An example of separation in the Constitution can be exhibited by the “Lemon Test,” a test prepared to ensure that laws are secular in nature:
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with religion. (Flowers)
This test, established after the Supreme Court case “Lemon v. Kurtzman,” demonstrates that [I]all laws with a religious purpose are, in fact, unconstitutional and have no place in the United States legal system. Obviously, when the basis of our country’s laws states that laws with a religious nature are harmful, its regulations should be respected. Even when disregarding all laws, America was still founded on the principal of religious freedom.
Religious freedom is much different than religious toleration, however. Numerous American citizens believe that the United States is a country of religious toleration. This is incorrect. The United States practices religious freedom. The difference between the two is demonstrated by Ron Flowers: “Religious freedom means that the government has no say in whether a religion may exist in the country.” (Flowers) The founders of America created a country of religious freedom, not toleration. Nevertheless, religious fanatics intend to merely tolerate minority religions, when they should allow them to be free, grow, and flourish, just as they desire their own religion to. Simply tolerating is unlawful and leads to confusion. This in turn harms everyone, including the church.
If the United States practiced religious and government integration, the result would be considerable confusion and conflict. Reasoning for this declaration can be found in Ron Flowers’ statement, “The more the state does the work of the church, the less relevant the church will become.” (Flowers) If the government could impose religion, then the church would grow to be less important, and would give an excess of power to the government. This would certainly harm the church. In addition, as evidenced before, religious conflict is capable of escalating into full, bloody wars. These conflicts would not occur if religion is private, and not promoted by government. The founders of America realized this. As a result, they wrote the Constitution as it is today. If they had not, whose God or religion would it be in our government? Catholic or Protestant, Jewish or Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist? (Jayne) Masses of antidisestablishmentarian Christians believe that they do not want separation of church and state. In reality, they do not want separation of Christianity and state. They assume that Christianity would be the primary governmental religion. As a result of this uncertainty, if the government ever exercised religious and government unity, general confusion and a decrease in the church’s power would ensue.
Regardless of these horrific consequences, countless citizens actually want the government to promote their beliefs. However, the government should help keep the citizens’ beliefs intact, not impose their own. Flowers argues, “Not everyone believes in God the same way; some do not believe at all. But they are all Americans. They are all entitled to religious freedom” (Flowers). Since there are so many different beliefs in America, supporting a single religion would be unfair. However, ignoring history, law, and fairness, several fanatics are attempting to turn America into a Christian nation. (Barker) Common sense highlights religious and governmental division as the finest choice, however. Although desired by a few, amalgamation of church and state would harm the nation in tremendous ways, as demonstrated by history. Conversely, division greatly reduces conflict, and encourages toleration.
Numerous religious individuals believe that government neutrality is harmful to religion, when in fact, it is the opposite. As Ron Flowers states, “People often ask me why, given that I am a Christian and ordained minister; I am such an advocate for separation of church and state. The answer, of course, is: because I am a Christian and ordained minister.” (Flowers) As stated, even an extremely religious individual is an advocate for separation of religion and government. This is because religion is free from constraints when it is not affected by government. Continuing with what Flowers states, “I take my faith very seriously. For faith to be insulated from the corroding influences of government and politics is a good thing.” (Flowers) Again stated by a minister, religion can develop and thrive when not suppressed by politics. It is actually deeply harmed by governmental influence, and if independent from governmental pressure, is allowed to grow and flourish.
In the United States, separation of church and state has proven itself time and time again to be the safer, more functional policy in the United States. This is evidenced by the fact that, “In times of crisis, minority religions have supported the government.” (Jayne) This support, which is caused by equal treatment to all, results in a stabilized and productive atmosphere. In contrast, including a single religion in politics would anger the minority and turn them against the government. Thomas Jefferson stated in 1808 that this ‘wall’ of church and state separation has brought us ‘quiet’ and ‘comfort,’ or religious peace. Not only is it un-American for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advocate religion, someone is offended. (Jayne) The best government policy is undoubtedly one of religious neutrality. And not only is unification of these two concepts against the laws and morals of our country, it is completely unnecessary. John Locke once stated that “People are not morally incompetent. They can find right and wrong on their own, independent of any church, scripture, clergy, King anointed by God, or noble.” (Jayne) Citizens of America are able to distinguish between “right” and “wrong” on their own. They do not need a religious official to tell them what is moral and what is not. Because of the uselessness and unconstitutionality of religious and governmental integration, government neutrality on religion is unquestionably the wisest policy for the United States to practice.
In the United States today, it is clear that separation of church and state is the best policy, despite many antidisestablishmentarians’ beliefs. And although integration of church and state exists today in the United States, it is unconstitutional, and in reality harms religion. Separation is extremely beneficial to all, and helps religion to flourish. Why should countless people be excluded and discriminated against, just for the sake of a tiny number of religious fanatics? These fanatics believe that, despite logic, fairness, history, and plain common sense, turning the United States into a “Christian nation” would be beneficial to them. This is untrue. United States secularism is one of the most important components of this country, and will always continue to be.