Separation of Church and State - Opposing View

Redefining the Wall of Separation between Church and State

A Rebuttal to “The wall of Separation between Church and State Defined”

What we call The United States originally started as colonies in 1607, created by those who wanted to escape religious intolerance and persecution. Although the Constitution has never explicitly said that it was a country under God, it has been held as such for centuries. Unfortunately there has always been those who, intolerant of beliefs of any kind, have attempted to separate religion from the country that empowers it. And if this country becomes a secular nation in comparison to the religiously based government it is currently, the morale of its citizens will become darkened and the Democracy will be derailed.

I would like to start by pointing out that churches are not excluded from taxes in order to have a “free pass”. Churches and other religious gatherings alike are considered sovereigns – not controlled or owned by the government, but rather residing inside the country. Just as the United states does not tax property owned by foreign governments, the United States cannot interfere with religious gatherings as well. The “Wall of Separation between Church and State” mentioned by Jefferson is not a one-way wall – the government needs to be held in check as well. Just as they cannot be affiliated with a religious groups or having taxes benefit them, they cannot have taxes hamper either. Therefore attempting to tax the church would be wrong to do, and would be considered breaking the 1st amendment. Aside from the law aspect, wherein by itself shows that it would be unjust to tax, churches are non-profit organizations, and in many cases would be unable to pay the taxes. Between keeping the congregation operational, keeping its workers paid, and raising funds for charity, money would be unreasonably tight – in smaller towns across America, churches would become near extinct.
In defense against the accusations of church effecting the outcome in politics, the two are near inseparable. “It is impossible to separate them (religion and politics), and anyone who claims it can and should be done is either lying or hasn’t thought it through”, says Bishop Pierre Whalon. There have been many national elections happening within the past few years, and religion has been one of the most important aspects – it is impossible to name one election that religion hasn’t been a significant factor. Many people say that it’s best to “stay out of politics”, but in the end it’s impossible for a Christian – or any other religious affiliated person for that matter. Even Jesus of Nazareth was blatantly political, up to the point of his execution.

I would like for there to be a reconsideration of the Bill to “Define the Wall of Separation between Church and State”, and leave the wall alone, just as it has been for centuries. In accordance to Bert Lance, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in Jimmy Carter’s 1977 administration, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. That’s the trouble with the government: Fixing things that aren’t broken and not fixing things that are broken.” Don’t try to fix the system we’ve had working for years – instead focus on something that will be of more use.

Separation of Church and State Continued!

Since my research, I have worked on another document to get this started. So, here it is!

The Wall of Separation between Church and State Defined

            Few people realize how far the tentacles from religious gatherings can intrude on our society. In the United States, the first record of definition for “separation of church and state” lies in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. It states: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions … should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” Yet even though we are not to make laws to help or hinder any religious gathering, some of the definitions of help have been warped to different meanings. For a few simple examples, churches are exempt from paying taxes (which if they were to pay, it would solve many matters of debt and poverty alone), those who attend a church and pay tithe (money to the “work of God”) receive a tax benefit, and some religious gathering end up poisoning politics, bringing in emotion rather than intellect.

            With Churches and gatherings receiving many “free passes” from the government, it’s hard to see where the wall of separation stands. In fact, the wall that is meant to separate religion from power has become more of a bridge. And to make matters worse, laws that the churches approve of are passed with ease, whereas the laws that are not in agreement with how they teach are challenged profusely. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is some form of bias between this wall, where the power that was meant to be withheld from church is now being held against government. I would like to state that I am a Christian, and worship my God. However through my short amount of experience, I have already found that religion can cause more harm than it claims to help.

            In order to fix this dilemma and even out the scales, I propose for there to be a strict law in what can and cannot be done. By having this law passed, there would be little to no room for confusion or persuasion in what the government and church can or cannot do. Within this law, I propose for churches to be stripped from all their tax benefits, and instead have to pay tax as any organization would, and its members would pay tithe out of kindness, rather than expecting to get a tax cut through “giving to their God”. I would also like to enforce a clear boundary between politics and religious power, although this may be the hardest aspect of the proposal. By setting a boundary, politics could then stick to fact and reason, rather than emotion and religious belief (which in all sense, could be complete fiction).

I believe that religion has its place, and government is not it. I also believe that government has its place, and religion is not it. Therefore I propose to finalize and strengthen this wall between Church and State, not for personal reasoning, but to ensure the survival of free speech, uniqueness, and law.

My Exploratory Essay

For my English class, my latest project is to write something as if for a senate (or something along those lines). My latest assignment? An exploratory essay going through some of my research process for that project. So that's what I'm going to share with you today. My Exploratory Essay on the Separation of Church and State.

Day 1

I begin my research on Spring Break, in my own room, sitting on a rather comfy blue chair. Why am I doing this research? Because I have to – there is a grade that I need to get, being worth 20% of my overall assignment. So I took advantage of this time to start my research. My dad is at work because of a problem that was just called in and my mom and brother are down in the barn. It’s about 8:00pm, and all is dark outside – only sounds to be heard are the barking of our dogs who are at the moment chasing coyote’s off our property. And thus, it starts.

Before leaving on Spring Break, I picked up two books from the library: “The Separation of Church and State” by Forrest Church, and “Church and State”, a book from the Opposing Viewpoints Series. This is what I will be sifting through tonight. I will not be looking online – I will be lazy and save that part for later.

Turns out that my first choice (the one by Forrest Church) was a loss – nothing of interest, and nothing important to my argument. What am I arguing exactly? Simple – the separation of church and state. I want church to be church, and state to stay state. No slimy tentacles attaching from one to the other. I prefer my country tentacle free. So yes, nothing in this book besides the (rather uninteresting) history of how religious freedom came to be in the United States – the freedom to worship whatever/whoever you want. That is good, but does not aid in separating. Round 2?

“The establishment of religion clause means at least this:

·        Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church.

·        Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

·        Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion…

·        Neither a state nor the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa”

- “Church and State”, pg. 20

Aha! There is the information I want and need – right away! I have now found the original meaning of the separation of church and state. It means this:

So that means…

1.      There cannot government funded church or any church in any relation to the government (besides residing within the government rules of course).

2.      There cannot be any laws that would give benefit to one religion or another.

3.      There cannot be any enforcement of church attendance or no church attendance. That choice is within the people alone.

4.      The government cannot work or participate with any church or religious organizations (visa-versa).

Awesome – that alone helps already. The rest of this chapter goes along 8 different viewpoints:

1.      Historically there has been a wall Between Church and State

2.      There is No Historical Basis for a Separation Between Church and State

3.      America is a Christian Nation

4.      America is a Secular Nation

5.      Religious Expression in the United States Is Too Public and Political

6.      The Separation of Church and State in the United States Has Gone Too Far

7.      There Should Be a Separation of Church and State to Protect Religious Liberty

8.      The Post-1947 Concept of Church and State Has Led to Intolerance of Religious Expression

These are all very good topics, however there are some (stupid) people who have written some. By this, I mean that they write, speak, and think religiously besides standing back and thinking secularly for a moment. To push it out there, I am a Christian (non-denominational), and one of my main beliefs I stand true to is that even if there was no such thing as religion, what we do would work just fine. Obviously in worshipping to God, in which Christianity is centered around, would prove useless in those terms that is an exception – because it is a core mechanic of religion. But take everything else in life that many do for cases of religion:

a.      Be Kind to people around you, and treat them with respect: This holds true for religion and secularity. While being kind is promoted by God and Biblical scriptures, it makes sense to be kind in a secular environment as well. You are pleasant to be around, and therefore people like you. You could even go as far as to say that in being kind you make allies, and being an ass, you make enemies. And to even back this belief up more, Christianity isn’t the only religion to promote kindness. There is, to name a few: Buddhism, Confucius, and Islam. Religions who have no connection with Christianity, seem to come up with the same core beliefs – obviously there is something to it. I call it common sense.

b.      Be a vegetarian – I see this as a guideline, not a rule. In Christianity, the scriptures glorify those who eat as a vegetarian (such as Daniel in Babylon) – though they don’t glorify because of vegetarianism. However there are those who take things too far. Worse off, there are “prophets” that claim that vegetarianism is the holier choice (see: Ellen White, Seventh Day Adventist) and majorities follow. Vegetarianism is a choice: one that should not be altered or effected by a religion. If it makes sense to you, or you are for some reason unable to digest meat, go for it. If you do it because a religion says so, you’re not thinking.

The second chapter to this book explains about how religious affiliation influences the political system. Oddly, this falls right into my above examples. The preface for the chapter gives the scenario of immigration laws around the Mexican border. Those who were thinking just about the law saw the need to make stronger laws for immigration; those who were using religious thinking were against the laws because, “It’s not what Jesus would do.”

Actually, we can’t know what Jesus would or wouldn’t do. But we do have laws, and if someone breaks the laws (such as entering the country illegally), they should be held accountable for those transgressions. The law is generally clear and simple, except when religion tries to inject it’s viewpoints.

Chapter 2, as it turns out, is a smaller chapter. Titled “How Does the Wall Between Church and State Affect Political Issues”, it’s viewpoints are titled:

1.      Religious Leaders Should Not Get Involved in Politics

2.      Religious Leaders Have the Right to Get Involved in Politics

3.      Politicians Should Be Allowed to Let Their Religious Beliefs Influence Policy Decisions

4.      The Introduction of Religious Beliefs into Policy Decisions Must Be Opposed

5.      Political Candidates Should Be Free to Talk About Religious Beliefs

6.      Political Candidates Rely Too Much on Religion

These articles are all very well written and hold plenty of information, however what is to be used is yet to be decided. But my view on it? I should expand on what I’ve written before:

Above, I called those who think solely (or majorly) on religion are “stupid”. This chapter seems to strengthen that view wherein it talks about religion intermingled with politics. When there are candidates for some sort of election running, religion ends up mucking up a lot of the real information.

For example, one man running would be a great contributor to civilization and exactly what the country needs, but he’s an atheist running against a “good” (albeit secretly corrupt) Lutheran (just an example) that will pull the country down. Because he’s atheist, he has just lost a large amount of votes from the public because they would rather have the country in control by a religious president compared to a secular one. Even though one is better than the other, the religious prejudices override many facts that could just make sense to go with. This is what I mean by “religious thinking is stupid”.

So there you have it: I’ve spent an hour and a half working on this research so far, and I am tired. Still dark outside, I’m ready to call it a night for homework.

Day 2/Finale

I found out that Spring Break got in the way fast. So here I am, like a normal college student, finishing this last minute. I’ve decided I will definitely use the book I studied through earlier, but the make this a more wholesome summary of my resources/exploration of the topic, I will use some online sourcing.

First off, I will be using a site called infidels.org, in which they have U.S. Supreme Court Decisions regarding the Separation of Church and State. Here they are, all lined up and ready for me to use for my project. Dating all the way back to 1879, I have 15 important court cases to work with to mold to my needs.

My next source will be citing from “Jefferson’s Wall of Separation Letter”, written in October of 1801. The website hosting this information is www.usconstitution.net, where they have any/everything regarding constitution up for grabs.

As a final sourcing for my information, I have decided to dig into www.free2pray.info, where many anti Separation of Church and State people have information against my goal. Having this VERY alternate siding to my other two sources will help in writing my rebuttal, as this site is dedicated mainly to the freedom of having religion in everything.

So that’s it – I have many of my sources down on paper (in ink really, but though the printer) and I plan to get this project started soon enough. I will probably find more sourcing, but for now I believe this sets a fine tuned example of my ideas and plans. 

Presenting... The Omni-Pie!

Hey all - I am completely checked out mentally from everything at the moment, especially school. But I do want my English points, and why not give you guys something to read!

Below is the script for a Commercial project we had for English a few weeks ago - amazing stuff. I will see what I can do about getting the commercial up on youtube and link it to this blog soon! But until then...

PRESENTING The Omni-Pie (yeah, we just put it there to sound cool)

What it does

-          Homework

-          Gets us to class

-          Pays off loans

-          Feeds you!

Cost

-          Six installments of $15.99 +S&H +Tax +Royalties +Annual Fees for Network access

-          Call now and get a second for 20% off!

-          Requires an active data connection with AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, or Sprint. (An extra fee of $20 per month)

Description: This pie is not intended for children under 13 years old, or women who are pregnant or intending to become pregnant. Contents of this pie cannot be disclosed due to international regulations for fear of lawsuit by the CDC for missing rare and dangerous viruses. These comments have not been approved by the FDA, the USA, the UK, the CIA, the FBI, the UAE, ICPO, KGB,  and other international organizations and terrorist groups.

Side effects

-          Itchy Skin

-          Dry Mouth

-          Nose Bleeds

-          Blood Clots

-          High Cholesterol

-          Schizophrenia

-          Empty Bank Accounts

-          Sticky Toes

-          Trouble Sleeping

-          Itchy Eyes

-          Allergies

-          Sneezing

-          Blood loss

-          Vomiting

-          Missing Organs

-          Dry skin

-          Blurry vision

-          Laziness

-          Diarrhea

-          Internal Bleeding

-          Incineration

-          Diabetes

-          Stage 4 Cancer

-          Strange Attraction to Lightning

-          Hives

-          Strange Romantic Attractions to the Pie itself

-          An erection that lasts for more than four hours

-          Erectile Dysfunction

-          World War III

-          Radiation

-          Alcohol Poisoning

-          Mercury Blood Contaminations

-          AND Rigged Elections

Call now to secure your Omni-Pie today! Call a minute ago and get your second Pie free!

(Audio Voiceover) I’m Barrack Obama and I approve this message.

Super Cheesy Grilled Cheese with Extra Cheese

And bacon. That was my dinner last night. NEVER - EVER - again. Albeit, it was absolutely delicious. But the side effects were not pretty. I could practically taste a heart attack, and my blood flow seemed to slow to the speed of a sloth. Ever heard of cholesterol? I think I developed it for last night alone. This is what happens when you get:

- A third of a french loaf (sliced in half) (and I only ate one half!)
- Cream cheese (instead of butter)
- Provolone, Swiss, and Muenster
- Bacon
- Tomato soup (with bacon!)

Yeah - a whole lot of delicious. And a whole lot of regret. Never again.

Weather and Timeshift

So today, a very important event has taken place in the United States - the damn timeshift that messes with everyone's internal clocks. Yep - daylight savings time. I remembered this because I aimed to go to bed at 2:00 this morning, only to realize that a whole hour went away in a matter of seconds. Thus, I fell asleep at 3:00.

But on the bright side (no pun intended), the weather is looking better. Albeit, it is rainy - but the temperatures are feeling nice! A cool 50-60 degrees feels heavenly! If only it didn't get much warmer and stayed like this (without the rain) for the summer, I would be super happy!

Gah - Homework

I make no attempt to cloak this, and I make no attempt to lie about what this blog post is. I have been working with homework for nearly 12 hours today, with two small breaks. Math is not cool at the moment, and I have no idea what to write. Not a good day.

So this post is exactly what it looks like - bullshit to fill up my post quota. Although my wordcount usually makes up for my lack of posts whenever, I still like to post when possible in order to keep the daily thing going. Just some days one is meant to post blog stuff. Especially when it's a busy day.

But hey - do you like music? Music is amazing and it helps get me through the day. And talking to certain people*, but that's a whole other thing! Anyways (I WILL make it a word btw), have a GREAT weekend and get some rest - we all need it!