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.