Separation of the church and state is an emotive topic that attracts mixed reactions in the US. The topic is important because the separation of church and state is the principle that the government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. Numerous people see the separation of church and state as required by the First Amendment. The First Amendment not just permits citizens their preferred opportunity to practice any religion, yet in addition keeps the government from authoritatively perceiving or supporting any religion. The First Amendment which was additionally sanctioned in 1791 states that "Congress will make no law regarding a foundation of religion, or denying the free exercise thereof" (Cline, 2018). However, the expression "partition of church and state" itself is not in the United States Constitution. This topic ought to be important to everybody in light of the fact that "a wall of separation between church and state" is an extremely solid statement, clear in importance (Audi, 2011). As a matter of fact, it implies that the legislature cannot make laws that support one religion over some other. The foundation of the laws should not be free from the articulation of religious convictions. Therefore, individuals can pray in school, but public schools cannot require people to pray. The government cannot endorse any particular religion, meaning there can be no copies of the Ten Commandments in front of schools, nor nativity scenes in government buildings, nor Buddha statues in front of government offices.
Indeed, the separation of the church and the state is a topic that is very important but one that has been widely misunderstood, maligned or misrepresented (Cline, 2018). The misunderstanding has been manifest in US politics, religious and legal debates. People have varied opinions and views on the matter. What is worrying is that the views are aligned with how they have been socialized and religious thinking. Further, it is disturbing that the majority argues from misinformed perspectives despite the separation of the two entities being anchored on the constitution (Wilson, 2018). What comes to mind amidst all the arguments and the mixed reaction is that, is there a need to separate the church from the state and how should it be done. The answer to this is yes, there should be a separation between the church and the state. From the constitutional point of view, many people agree to the fact (Lankford & Moore, 2018). The rationale is that the separation is a matter of principle that should be protected since the two entities provide distinct but nearly complimentary services. Some sense of neutrality should prevail to safeguard their credibility and autonomy as they discharge their duties. This is because religion plays a critical role in providing the spiritual needs of individuals and help to mold moral value and consciousness. Government officials need these virtues to deliver and perform exceedingly well.
On the other hand, the state has the requisite instruments of authority that are employed to regulate the church and other institutions. However, the powers and regulating authority should be applied neutrally to support the entire religious body and not selectively (Cline, 2018). The constitution envisaged a situation where many religious groups will emerge and provides a protection clause. The constitution terms the right to worship and religion as a fundamental right that must be protected. Therefore, the government has no authority to support a particular religion or favor a religion whether Catholic or Muslim at all cost.
According to Lankford & Moore (2018) there exist a thin line between the church and state (p. 1). First, there is no single church just like there are several levels of government in the US. The church is made up of many religious organizations that hold diverse names such as Roman Catholic, Pentecost, Methodist and Muslims. The state also has different levels of governance and departments that make decisions. What is interesting is that the members of the diverse religious groups are the same people who control state power or facilitate policy formulation. This makes the topic complicated when discussed on simplistic terms. Any form of separation or preference may lead to a dysfunctional state. Cline (2018), concludes that the two entities should sustain distinct lines of operations (p. 1). The church should continually be construed as an organized religious body with clear underpinning doctrines and dogmas while the state should remain as any governmental body with the mandate to provide services on a neutral basis.
On their part, some educationists have supported the quest for the separation of state and church. In their view, the separation has been fruitful (Audi, 2011). It has achieved the intended objective as the constitutional drafters envisaged. Although discrimination on religious grounds still exists in most schools, many strides have been covered. The situation could have been worse if the state was supporting a particular church or religion. According to the educationists, the state has been so neutral to the extent that the freedom of worship has not been curtailed. Students are free to associate, interact and attend church services based on their religious leanings (Wilson, 2018). Schools are not coerced to practice a dictated religion either are they forced to mount religious emblems, statues or any copies in front of the gates. This has been the true spirit of the First amendment schedule of 1791 that denies even the Congress from making oppressive laws that eliminate the free exercise of religion (Eberle, 2016).
From a personal perspective, the level of religious discrimination has been real and it affects many students psychologically and emotionally. They find it hard to cope with others, mingle and perform well in class or academics. The question that has always crossed my mind is that if this is happening when there is a wall of separation between the state and church, how could it be if the state supported a particular religion? The problem could be worse since such a move would enhance the level of polarization and hatred among citizens, something that our founding fathers and great activists such as Martin Luther King junior were against (Eberle, 2016). Martin Luther wanted a state that respects the rights of citizens including the freedom to worship. At the time, he noted that “just as the Roman Catholics think that they have a right, others too should enjoy the rights without any disclaimer†(Eberle, 2016). Civil activists hold that separation of church and state is like separating religion and civil authority. This is due to that fact that religious and civil authority should not be invested upon. Just like civil authority cannot control religious bodies or dictate to the organizations what to preach, when and how to preach, the state should also refrain from that.
To this extent, separation is not only meant to restrict the actions of the government. It also covers the level of influence religious bodies can have on government concerning the adoption of doctrines. Religious bodies can also force governments to embrace their doctrines and have them endorsed as policy for everyone (Richardson, 2016). This was one time evident in the US when the Roman Catholic was highly dominant. The religion enjoyed many centuries of dominance thus making it more powerful and a dynastic ruling class in the US and Europe. Their position made them sneak in some of the Roman Catholic doctrines in the law. Some of the religion aligned portraits, nativity scenes including statues were also evident in major state establishments (Richardson, 2016). This is what gave rise to the famous “reformation movement†that Martin Luther King spearheaded.
Clearly, churches or church leaders should respect the constitutional principle of separation of powers and stop the clamor to have a certain set of doctrines codified in the law. They should stick to their role of promoting moral stability in the society by ensuring systematic nurturing of government officials to exercise self-restraint. The officials should equally know God who is the cornerstone of human life (Richardson, 2016). Knowing God is paramount because it helps in differentiating what is right or wrong including what is good or bad. The teachings of the Ten Commandments and other doctrines broadly underscores the importance of constitutionality and rules in the society. They create an understanding that religion has a role to play in shaping the value system devoid of pushing for the inclusion of doctrines in the country’s policy framework (Wilcox & Jelen, 2016). What must be understood is that governments cannot run effectively without religion or church and the First amendment recognizes this aspect. However, either body should not have direct control over another. Some level of independence is highly required to safeguard social unity and activities of every entity.
While the anti-discrimination provisions and the religion clauses are closely related, they protect the freedom of the religions in different ways. The Establishment Clause, on the one hand, is focused on the actions of the government employees and government institutions. For instance, it is wrong according to the Establishment Clause for a teacher of a public school in America to tell students that the only true religion is Christianity (Sorauf, 2015). The reason why such actions may violate the clause is that the teacher is supposed to act as a government employee in his capacity while the clause prohibits the government from endorsing religious practices and believes. The Free Exercise Clause, on the other hand, focuses on the religious associations of private citizens (Wilcox & Jelen, 2016). For example, when the government discourages the Islam practice, whether by refusing the exercise of Muslim religious practices in prisons, creating strict zoning laws for mosques, or regulating imams’ licensure or by other means, it would violate the free exercise rights of the Muslims.
The US is not a theocracy but rather a constitutional republic. If the U.S was a theocracy, church-sanctioned states could become puppets of religion. Under such circumstances, the inspired teaching of the scripture would take the precedence over the edicts of fallible man. When the church heads the state, the integrity of the gospel can be compromised easily (Sorauf, 2015). Pastors would be unfit to collect taxes or preside a legal obligation in a court of law and determine the jail term period for a person found guilty of committing a criminal offense. This is because Christianity teaches about forgiveness and separation of offerings from government taxes. As such, there must be a separation between churches and the state. The government cannot purport or act in any manner that suggests or display support for a particular religion for peaceful coexistence to prevail.
Conclusion
Indeed, the Fifth Amendment does not expressly provide that the state and church be separated expressly; however, what is provided in the freedom to religion or worship. The widely cited clause is the one which reads “Congress shall make no law representing an establishment of religionâ€. It goes on to state “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or curtailing the freedom of speech, right of peaceful assembly and petition of the government to redress any grievance. It does not provide an express separation but a “wall of separation†which either side should not break. Therefore, I feel and believe that the church and state should be separated by upholding the “wall of separation†principle.
The first reason for this is to avoid the overreaching of roles or instances where an entity would act ultra-vires. In American society, there are numerous religious groups including the secular people or non-believers. All these people have different doctrines and dogmas including beliefs. Managing such a diverse group is not possible if neutral policies and guidelines are not in place. For instance, if you have a state that supports one religion, the others will react negatively thus promote discrimination. The other danger is that lack of separation may give chance to some religious doctrines to find space in national policy or laws. This may compel other people to embrace practices that are against their will and tradition. It would curtail the freedom of choice and religion.
For most Americans, the opportunities offered by the doctrine that separates church and state in this nation, in spite of the few and fluctuated negative outcomes, merit the negative sentiments offered by different nations and assaults completed by radical gatherings on the grounds that these opportunities have sustained a national regard for the decent variety among the shifting religions, foundations, and legacies of American natives which has pushed the nation into its place as a noteworthy force to be reckoned with. These opportunities are valued to the point that Americans will battle not just for the proceeded with wellbeing of these opportunities their very own nation, yet to secure and give help different nations in their battle for these equivalent opportunities. The need to ensure these opportunities and qualities is the basic quality in the core of each American fighter who is sent far from their homes and families to battle for the subjects of war torn nations. American officers volunteer their lives to safeguard these opportunities, both in America and abroad. America has assembled an establishment in history for its quality and resolve, and its nationals will battle to keep this establishment set up for who and what is to come.
More danger would befall the country if a secular leader becomes the president. This would promote secularism thus lead to the systematic erosion of moral values in society. Particularly, you may have a secular leader introducing a policy whereby certain Buddha statues and nativity scenes are installed in various establishments. Every regime would have their religious emblems and doctrines imposed on the people which the constitutional provision was designed to avert. Such situations would bring total chaos and disrupt unity in the wonderful nation.