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.