NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... only Washington and Adams held days of public prayer and thanksgiving. When Jefferson became President he did away with those practices saying that they were religious practices and, as such, belong in the province of religious societies, not of government (Miller 131). He felt that government should deal with actions, not opinions, and that no one should be held accountable for his faith.
In his view religion was between the individual and his God. Jefferson also believed that government mixed with religion was dangerous and wrong, yet John Adams disagreed. Ironically, both Adams and Jefferson died on July 4, 1826, and in spite of their differing beliefs, they were friends when they died. The term state denotes the politically organized community with its monopoly of coercive power. The church on the other hand, is a voluntary association which must depend on non-coercive religious motivation and persuasion in making its impact upon the individual and the community (Wilson 220). Even in modern times the debate continues, the strength of the government versus the religious motivation in establishing freedom.
From religion in public schools to religious acts that break laws, there have been courtroom battles over the meaning of Establishment. These court cases date back to the early twentieth century. After the Constitution was written religious diversity was widely accepted. However, it has caused great adversity in the courts as evidenced in the following: Engel vs. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962) Court finds school prayer unconstitutional (FACT p. 1 of 6).
This case, known as the Regents Prayer Case (Gaustad 381), decided by Justice Hugo Black, cited We think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government (Gaustad 381). This was to say that prayer, a form of religious worship, was constitutionally excluded from public education (Gaustad 385). In 1963, Justice Tom Clark felt that religion was acceptable and desirable for not only good moral standards but to fully understand American History. Later that year other judges disagreed, for instance in Abington School District v.
Scheme, 374 U. S. 203 (1963) Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Current, 374 U. S. 203 (1963) Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional (FACT p. 1 - 2 of 6).
Furthermore in 1992 Lee vs. Weisman, 112 SCt. 2649 (Freedom 2 of 1 - 6) the court upheld that prayer in public school was unconstitutional. In addition to these court decisions, a more recent argument has come to light: the focus on prayer before school sponsored events. Justices of the U. S. Supreme Court grilled attorneys closely on both sides The case is being closely watched, since it is the first religion-and-schools dispute before the high court since 1992. (Conn 16) In 1993, in a different case that dealt with religious acts breaking laws, the court found an ordinance, passed by a Florida City to stop a religious group from using live animals for sacrifice in their ceremonies, was unconstitutional because it was aimed at a specific church.
However, the sacrifice of animals was outlawed. The balance of right and wrong in these cases is extremely volatile. Historically, the court has had to be very careful not to infringe on the church's freedom while imposing laws, as is evidenced in the above cited case. The constant battle for meaning in the law is a burden in and of itself, and the battleground is not limited to the courtrooms. In a recent Subcommittee Hearing of the House of Representatives there was an amendment introduced that had the sole purpose of restoring religious freedom, or the RFA. This proposal was passionately battled on the floor.
Representative Chet Edwards of Texas said, with regards to the Establishment clause of the Constitution, For over two centuries, that simple but profound statement has been the guardian of religious liberty (Edwards 6) He believes that if this bill is passed that it could damage religious freedom. (Edwards 6) On the other side of the debate stood Representative Sanford Bishop of Georgia who stated we seek to correct instances where the Constitution has been misinterpreted in ways which in fact deny the people their religious freedom. (Edwards 13) This resolution could have allowed people the freedom to publicly worship whomever or whatever they wanted, yet the government could not force any particular religious school prayer or discriminate against any religion, nevertheless it fell quite a ways short of garnering the necessary votes for passage, Istook insisted it would be back. (Been 10) In conclusion, from the Protestantism of early America to the Liberalism of today, one can see how the evolution of the separation of church and state took place. It all started with the Puritan English Colony settlers attempting to purify the Church of England, and it intensified into legal battles with lawyers and judges who are still trying to interpret exactly what our forefathers meant in the sixteen words of the Establishment Clause. For example, Madison and Jefferson's definitions of religious freedom stated that the government needed to stay out of the business of churches and the personal beliefs of the people. The United States Supreme Court now interprets this to mean that prayer in a public school is unconstitutional, which seems almost ludicrous at best.
Establishment was articulated with the rights of all religions in mind, and was completely innocent in its meaning. Although in its narrower definition religious liberty was achieved fairly early in the nations existence, in its broader definitions, and in the cultural issues it brings in its train, its full complexity is rising into view, 200 years after the Virginia statute was enacted (Wilson 350). The evolution of the separation of church and state, and its meaning, was lost from the beginning conflict between the Puritans and Separatists, through to todays courtrooms. From the politically organized community (the state) to the religious voluntary association (the church), there will always be conflict. Overall, one could determine that as long as there is plurality in religion and difference in beliefs, there will always be conflict on this subject. The complete separation of church and state will never evolve into what it was meant to be by our forefathers: the government out of the business of the church, as well as, out of the religious beliefs of the people.
Bibliography:
Free research essays on topics related to: supreme court, separation of church and state, religious liberty, religious freedom, establishment clause
Research essay sample on Separation Of Church And State
