| |
|
What is the role of the government in religion
or religion in government?
This is often covered in the topic of seperation of church and state.
Should there be a wall of seperation between church and state
or a neutrality with no favoritism being shown?
Also what does America's Constitution and Bill of Rights have
to say on this issue?
OK here we go on the topic of The First Ammendment
About the First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The first sixteen words of the First Ammendment pertain to religion:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Breaking it down further:
The first of the First Amendment's two religion clauses reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
It is sometimes called the Establishment Clause.
The second of the First Amendment's two religion clauses reads:
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
it is sometimes called the Free Exercise Clause.
Now what does the first ammendment mean regarding religion?
This is rather controversial when it gets to the Establishment Clause;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Basicly there are two views depending more or less on your worldview
Does it mean:
1) Government shall not establish one religion over another.
or
2) Freedom from religion. (A very popular view if you are an atheist.)
In other words,
should government be neutral, or a total vacuum when it comes to religion?
Some Supreme Court justices like William Rehnquist say that it means government should be neutral
and not establish one church over another.
So I asked what the first amendment means but the Supreme Court is basicly the one that for all practical
purposes makes laws based on what they think it means.
Supreme Court Trends in Intrepreting The First Amendment
Initially for a number of years the Supreme Court did not care much what States
did on these issues. Then about 1950 they ruled the Federal government has
the final say. For a few decades after that the trend was towards a "wall of seperation"
between church and state which kind of kicked God out of everything.
Recently for the past decade or so there seems to be a trend by the
Supreme Court to take a more neutral stance on the issue.
I tend to like this but many do not. This could be one reason why
many democrats are trying to keep Bush from appointing someone to the supreme court.
Here is an interesting example of interpretration of The First Amendment.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have tended to remain pretty much
on the trend of "wall of seperation" between church and state in their interpretation
of the First Amendment.
For example the 9th circuit court of appeals ruled the Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional because
of the words "under God" in 2002. They were saying the First Amendment Establishment Clause
was violated because the pledge would endorse religion.
In 2004 the Supreme Court overturned this on a technicality
so they did not have to go into the interpretation of First Amendment.
Summary
OK what do we have here.
I will step in with my opinion.
Our nation is founded on a really awesome constitition but that is no
guarantee of democracy and freedom. Mexico copied many of our
good laws but the country in general has more corruption than America.
Laws can be great but good people can overcome even
bad laws. Also bad people can overcome good laws. What am I getting at.
Become a good person and then you will affect all around you in a good way
and you can have the wisdom to vote for good politicians who can appoint
good Supreme Court Justices.
Related Links
First Amendment Center
website
Contact:
bruce@restoreournation.org
last updated:
Oct. 5th, 2004
|