1) What is the Establishment Clause?
I found that his read by Stephen L. Carter was a bit difficult for me because I don’t really pay any attention to politics. I found the “establishment clause” to be more based on religion, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” (Carter 103). This is backed up then by the “Free Exercise Clause”, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Carter 103). From my understanding this clause doesn’t try to prompt or put one religion before another by supporting it as being a state religion. It also makes a boundary line between the government and state. I think that this then allows the people to chose and practice a religion of their type. Meaning it puts the state away from interfering with them. “The Establishment Clause has been understood as the protection of the religious world against the secular government…celebrated the clause as the Magna Carta of religious freedom” (Carter 104). This means that the government can’t make any laws based on religion. This is important because it doesn’t limit our freedom in the United States. So far I think the interfering of the government hasn’t been a problem for the United States and if it continues to be, then the country is golden. But once interfering and or supporting the majority religion takes place many issues will raise. Overall I think that Stephen L. Carter was trying to get the point across about how the continuation of this separation must stay in order to have religious liberty, “the principal task of the separation of church and state is to secure religious liberty” (Carter 104).
Works Cited
Carter, Stepehen L. "The Separation of Church and State". A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think you had good points about the goverment continuing to not interfair with the religions. Your ideas of many things rising are very true. good job.
I liked reading your blog because I also found this reading to be somewhat hard because I am not that interested in politics either but you did a good job analyzing it in a way that makes your blog interesting to read.
i in a way see both sides of the clause. one to protect the government from the people and from being bias from other religions not of their own. and two the church from the government so they can have their own free will.
The separation of church from the state isn't a position--it's mandated by the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law repseecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free expression thereof" means that Congress can't prefer religious institutions over secular ones. The only way Congress has of expressing itself is through funding; therefore, Congress may not fund religious institutions instead of secular ones. Period. The First Amendment protects the State from religious zealots like King George, who made the Church of England England's "official" church.
Post a Comment