Use three cases in your answer.
Respond to two other comments.
Mr. Mills |
|
Is religion properly separated from government?
Use three cases in your answer. Respond to two other comments.
32 Comments
Sami Ehmed
2/21/2012 08:30:10 am
Religion is properly separated because there is a fair amount of separation between church and state and the worth of religion doesn't always blind the purpose of government which is to protect the rights of people. Sometimes the lines of separation draw very near and it is difficult to distinguish the right decision from the wrong and so the Supreme Court, with power entrusted in it serves to distinguish the difficult applications of how laws and regulations relate to religion and the preservation of its practice so long as it is safe and warranted.
Reply
Charlotte Juergens
2/22/2012 01:52:34 pm
You draw an interesting distinction here between the relationship of government and religion as opposed to the relationship of law and religion. It is easy to say that the government should only get involved with religion to enforce peoples' religious liberty, but everything becomes more complex when trying to figure out those laws.
Reply
Ibrahim
2/27/2012 05:23:12 am
Sami made a valid point with the case of Eversons vs the Board of ed on how the Gov't should preserve the common wealth of the people while making sure there is no promotion or hindering of a religion. The Gov't will make difficult decisions in cases involving religon and state by invalidating religious practices but will be necessary to ensure equality among religions and people.
Reply
Leah Kimball
2/29/2012 11:50:21 am
I agree wiht Charlotte, it was an interesting choice to make that distinction. I especially like what you have to say about religion and law. The relationship between religion and law is definitely complicated because they often disagree. That disagreement is inevitable and the government will have to continue to work to ensure the separation between Church and State.
Reply
Charlotte Juergens
2/22/2012 02:12:33 pm
The separation of religion and government is not perfectly accomplished in this country (and nor do I believe it will ever be perfect), but I don't think it's in a bad place either. The balance of the power of the government vs. the sanctity of individual rights is something that has been shifting continually since the founding of the nation. I think it's fortunate for us and all generations of Americans that the Constitution was not strict about how the separation of church and state was to be carried out, because each generation can figure out for itself where and how it thinks the line should be drawn.
Reply
Carla Sinclair
2/27/2012 10:34:46 am
Ooooh i agree with this. Especially since 9/11, and slightly like mccarthysism in the 50's and japanese internment except with religion, it seems like the government has used national security as a pretense to do things that would normally be absolutely illegal, and that's not fair because religion, even a particular one, is very vague and the discrimination can be considered a violation of the establishment clause, because it's hindering them.
Reply
Dannielle Coleman
2/27/2012 12:04:32 pm
I certainly agree with both of you. Charlotte makes a significant point that it's a good thing that the Constitution was not strict in the manner of how the church and state should be separated. It is only smart to allow each generation to interpret where the line should be drawn because as the times change, the standards, circumstances and morals of society alter as well. Also, I agree with Carla that it is unfair that the government seems to use national security as their excuse to do illegal things such as targeting Muslim-Americans in their claim to search for terrorists, as Charlotte stated. This is completely wrong because it invades their privacy and rights as American citizens, let alone human beings.
Sara Nodell
2/26/2012 01:40:33 am
Religion can never fully be separated from government but I do believe that our government does a good job separating it as much as possible. I agree with Sami when he says that the division of religion and government is rather tricky. By having such fine lines in certain cases, it is sometimes hard to distinguish which is being violated; the law or the freedoms of the people. I also agree when Charlotte says that figuring out the laws exact meanings and interpreting them as well as deciding if they are constitutional or conflicting with our first amendment, can be very difficult and complex.
Reply
Paula Cafiero
2/26/2012 03:22:18 am
I agree with Charlotte, I believe that government and religion are as separated as they can be, but they are not fully separated. I think that with the help of the judicial branch whenever one side really abuses their powers, the judicial branch sorts out the issue successfully.
Reply
Susan
2/27/2012 11:35:39 am
I agree with you. Also, the transportation systems itself isn't religious. Only if the parochial school requested funding that would be a different issue. Of course, we're assuming nobody was using the Jesus transit.
Reply
Chrystal Wong
2/26/2012 04:31:36 am
There will always be underlying circumstances in which one may feel religion is not properly separated from the state. However, I believe that our government tries its best in drawing the boundaries between church and state. I agree with Sami that sometimes those boundaries may be difficult to distinguish, but there have been many court cases that have improved the distinction between separation of church and state.
Reply
Emma Silva
2/26/2012 09:41:36 am
Many people have argued over whether or not religion is properly separated from our government. I agree with Sara, who said that religion and government can never fully be separate. However, our government does an adequate job of drawing a clear line between the two. In Engel vs. Vitale, the New York State Board of Regents allowed for a prayer to be said at the beginning of each school day. While the prayer was optional, the Supreme Court found it to be unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause of the Constitution. This demonstrated the government trying to set a clear separation of church and state. In Everson vs. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for the New Jersey government to allow for reimbursements for parents with children traveling to any type of school through public transportation. The decision stated that providing money to students in parochial schools to travel to school had nothing to do with religion. The government was not giving any money to the schools, and did not violate the establishment clause.
Reply
Ibrahim
2/27/2012 05:15:04 am
Yes I agree with Emma on how the Gov't is doing it's best to seperate religion and gov't. Although religious customs were being followed in the case of Reynolds and Smith, regardless the law was still broken and there was no choice but to deny those practices.
Reply
Jillian Riley
2/27/2012 12:10:49 pm
I agree with both Emma and Ibrahim in that although the government works hard at the Separation, whenever a law is violated though the expression of religion, the law of the land will have to come first and there isn't any legal way to approve those practices.
Leah Kimball
2/29/2012 10:55:29 am
I also agree with Emma. The government is doing it's best. It is not possible for Religion and State to be completely separate. Religious customs are not allowed to break the law, therefore it is constitutional for a religious practice to be denied if it breaks any law.
Reply
Ibrahim Ahmad
2/27/2012 05:11:19 am
I believe the U.S gov't did properly seperate religion from gov't to a good extent. The decisions made in cases involving religion and state were proper and helped keep the peace between the people and the gov't. Clearly the Gov't can't favor all of the customs of all religions because they conflict with the constitution and they can possibly endager the common wealth of the U.S people.
Reply
Jahanzeb Sarwar
2/27/2012 10:32:42 am
I agree with Ibrahim that the government does a good job on seperating religion and government to a good extend.
Reply
Susan
2/27/2012 11:09:10 am
I agree with you on that. But in addition, the case depicted a scenario that involved an established religion because "God" is referred to as singular which infers that a public school endorses monotheistic religion. Some kids in school might believe in more than one "God", in "Godess(es)" or no "God" at all etc. The word "God" Therefore the prayer favors religions such as Christian/Jewish/Muslim faith who all believe in one God (masculine)
Raye Holab
2/27/2012 09:19:14 am
As much as it needs improvement, the US government does do a fair job of separating church and state. I agree with Chrystal that different people will feel that the boundaries between church and state have not been drawn correctly in certain circumstances. However, the government has an enormously difficult task on its hands. The American government was created partially in response to religious oppression, and the US has tried to maintain the founding fathers' original mission to create a government that does not involve itself in religion whatsoever. However, the government's duty is to protect and care for the welfare of it's citizens. If doing this involves regulating something that affects religion, should the government neglect its duty? This could mean providing funding for school transportation (both public and religious), like in the Everson case. But what about cases that interfered more directly with religion, such as the Reynolds case? This case especially, dealing with the legality of polygamy, dredges up difficult questions, not only about religion and government but also about how "big" government should be.
Reply
Charlotte Juergens
2/29/2012 12:54:20 pm
I agree with this. America has been deliberating over the size of its government since the Constitution was written. Raye has a good point; religious freedom is one of the main points of contention that has kept the issue of big v small government from being resolved. The government does have a huge task on its hands.
Reply
Jahanzeb Sarwar
2/27/2012 10:22:11 am
In my opinion, religion and government should be separated. In Reynolds v. US, Reynolds was found guilty of polygamy which is against the law. In this case, the Supreme Court made a verdict, that although citizens are protecting under the free exercise clause; Reynolds’ religious practices violated the law. The Supreme Court defined that the law was more superior.
Reply
Carla Sinclair
2/27/2012 10:23:44 am
It would be impossible for the government to reach a balance between church and state that would leave everyone involved happy. Everyone is going to have their opinions on where the lines should be drawn, which are usually in direct correlation to whether or not they're religious or not. But from what I've seen, they try to adhere to the clauses under the first amendment well enough. it's the free exercise and establishment clauses that cause the most controversy but at the end of the day keep the tables even.
Reply
Jillian Riley
2/27/2012 12:07:55 pm
I agree with Carla that a person's perspective on the separation depends on how religious they themselves are, leading to difficult decision making. Also that the clauses in the first amendment cause the majority of the controversy, however the government has done a decent job of respecting the rights of the people and keeping a balance between the separation religion and state.
Reply
Elsie Alvarez
2/27/2012 10:55:50 am
While there wasn’t always a clear separation between religion and the government, I agree with Sami that the Supreme Court does a good job in trying to create a separation between religion and the government.
Reply
Jillian Riley
2/27/2012 12:04:24 pm
The United States government has somewhat of a separation of religion and state, however it isn't, nor will it ever be perfect. Although the government is clearly obligated to protect the rights of the people, conflicting actions often make this difficult to decide.
Reply
Susan
2/27/2012 12:06:30 pm
I agree with many of you when you say that separation of church and state will never be fully accomplished but the government does its best it can to maintain a balance. The thing is I don’t think that it should either. The constitution calls for free exercise of religion and no established religion, but that doesn’t mean the government can’t get involved when necessary. Many times the two clauses: establishment and free exercise- go hand in hand with each other. The obstacle comes when the two clauses mentioned in the First Amendment contradict with one another or with the law of the nation and/or state. The Supreme Court is the one to decide how to interpret both of these clauses and set the limits or extents on each one. The government has a challenging job handling this issue because it involves securing freedom while keeping in accordance with the law. And what’s more is that religion is a part of many people’s lives so it is hard to say neutral, regulate, secure, evaluate etc. It seems like a great balancing act, so although improvement is needed, there is actually thought into the decisions of the cases. Plus there is pressure to favor a religion- I’m sure because Supreme Court justices are people too and have their biases.
Reply
Dannielle Coleman
2/27/2012 12:41:13 pm
I think religion and state are separated to a great extent, however, like Jillian said, it will never be perfect. I believe that past cases set the standards well, putting the Constitution first before anything, which brought the nation to our current decent situation. For example, in the Reynolds v. US case, the Supreme Court did not let Reynolds off the hook for practicing polygamy since it is against the law. It did not take away his rights, but free exercise of religion was definitely differentiated from religious action. Also, in the Allegheny v. ACLU case, the Supreme Court expressed that not all religious celebrations on government property violate the establishment clause. However, if it is in a certain setting portraying a message that may force religion onto others, it will be breaking the first amendment. In the Engel v. Vitale case, the Supreme Court ruled against prayer being recited in public schools since it may force certain religions as being the highest in the nation. This was significant because there are people of various religions in the United States including individuals who believe in many gods, opposed to one "God", which was stated within the prayer. As a result, cases as such as these three left our society now with free exercise of religion with protection from religious preference from the government as well as limitation to religious action as it could break the law.
Reply
Shantia B
2/28/2012 08:37:28 am
I believe that religion is as separated from government as it could possibly be in a successful government. It would be nearly impossible to completely separate the two, as they go hand in hand and religion could not go completely unregulated by the government. I think the United States does a really good job of making this separation. We don't have an established religion and we don't formally endorse or bash any particular religion--so in that sense we keep the separation. But the government needs to be able to step in and make sure that no laws are being broken, and to do this, they must have some part in governing when it comes to religion. There is no discrimination against people of a certain religion, nor is there any laws against any specific religions; all religions have to follow the same regulations and those who practice them are subject to the same punishment as any other citizen. In the case of Reynolds v. U.S, Reynolds was found guilty for breaking the law not because he believed in certain things, but because he did something that was illegal. We can see in this case that religion needs to be regulated by the government because if he were to be let off the hook, then everyone else who believed in certain things would be too. In the case of the Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court decided that laws, and the Constitution especially are usually going to be superior to religion. In the Engel v. Vitale case, the Supreme Court ruled against prayer being recited in public schools because of the fact that religion and the state should be held separately; allowing one religion to recite a specific prayer ultimately shows support for that religion. In all of these cases, the government took necessary action to make sure that religion was separated from the state. The government needs this authority in order to place restrictions on religions activities.
Reply
Kara Rodriguez
2/28/2012 01:07:19 pm
I think religion and government do keep that separate boundary line. They don't have any serious problems really ever. It's not like in the old days when the King or Queen demanded you bide by the religion and go to church every Sunday. In these days you can have freedom of religion and the government does not get involved.
Reply
Leah Kimball
2/29/2012 10:51:11 am
Religion is not properly separated from State, however I think religion and state are separated as best as they can be. It is impossible to have a perfect division because some laws impede certain religious practices and vice versa. For example, in the case Reynolds v. Everson, Everson’s claim was far-fetched, but technically correct. The government isn’t supposed to be involved with any religiously affiliated organization, but if the government had denied religious schools free transportation, that would have been unconstitutional too because they would be favoring a certain religion (or lack thereof). In Smith v. Employment Division of Oregon, the Supreme Court issued that the law rules over religious practices. All people must follow the law. The law cannot be bent for religious reasons. In Allegheny v. ACLU, the Supreme Court ruled that holiday symbols cannot be displayed because they would imply a preferred religion. The government tries very hard to keep Church and State as separate as possible, and as many have said, even though it is far from perfect, the government is doing very well.
Reply
Leah Kimball
2/29/2012 10:56:56 am
Everson v. Board of Education* excuse the typo, please!
Reply
Susan Sasson
3/1/2012 10:35:52 am
I strongly agree with you, when you say "if the government had denied religious schools free transportation, that would have been unconstitutional too because they would be favoring a certain religion (or lack thereof)." That is what came to mind when the group presented that case. Leave a Reply. |
Mr. Mills
Keep your comments related to the articles and American Government. Archives
March 2012
Categories |