The Legitimacy of Separation of Church and State

I'm looking forward to an intelligent discussion. 1. The separation of church and state is definitely in the constitution. Some people like to argue that the exact phrase, "separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution. While this is true, the idea of the separation of church and state remains in the Establishment Clause of the First amendment, stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ." What this instructs the government to do is to essentially take a neutral stance on religion. The fact that the government can make no law respecting an establishment of religion means that they cannot prefer one religion over the other officially, or make laws appropriating funds or help to any establishment of religion. At the same time, congress is not allowed to impede on the religious rights of the people to practice their religion as they please (so long as they do not break any established laws. ) If their religious practice breaks established laws, obviously we cannot respect the aspect of their religious practice that breaks the law. Muslims are not allowed to stone adulterers to death, and likewise radical Christians are not allowed to stone homosexuals to death. The First Amendment basically requires the government to remain neutral on issues of faith. It is not allowed to have any positive or negative statements about religion, and it will only take action when someone breaks a law because of their religious or cultist beliefs. As long as the religion and its people stay within the confines of the law, government should remain neutral. If you think that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ." only prohibits them from establishing a national religion, then you are sorely mistaken. It literally means that they cannot make any law respecting an establishment of religion. They cannot allow one religion to receive preferential treatment over another, they cannot make meetings open with voluntary prayer, and they cannot include religious teachings in public education. Under the First Amendment, the government simply has to remain neutral on issues of religion. And furthermore, the writings of Thomas Jefferson are not misinterpreted. "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature 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. " -Thomas Jefferson When he writes this, he means that the First Amendment literally separates government from religion. He did not write this saying that this amendment only protects religion from the government; he really believes that it separates the institutions from each other. Any attempts to argue for another interpretation of this statement aims to say that, "thus building a wall of separation between church and state" doesn't mean the exact thing it says. We should not only take it on the authority of the constitution and founding fathers that separation of church and state is legitimate, but we should also examine the positives and negatives of having a secular government. 2. Separation of church and state is essential in a diverse population. There are numerous different religions populating the United States, along with the widely differing sects and beliefs within each religion. In fact, many people who share the same faith and sect still have differing beliefs about the aspects of the religion. This results in millions of people all disagreeing with each other on matters of faith with each one thinking that they know with absolute certainty what their God or Gods want. In order to create peace and harmony within these religious groups, one group cannot have power over another. As soon as one religion or sect starts gaining power in the government, the various other religions want power too. And so, each religion and sect tries to insert their own beliefs into law and even start discriminating against other religions and sects. This is a recipe for hatred that has often erupted in civil war, discrimination, oppression, and secession. The fact is that if we are to preserve unity and peace within a religiously diverse population, the government should remain neutral and separate from religion. Instead of allowing religious dogma into law, we should instead use objective reasoning and scientific studies to determine what laws will create the most good. I don't imagine you would be pleased if a different sect or religion other than yours started gaining power in the government and started putting their fallacious dogma into law. It is really in the best interest of all parties involved to separate religion from the government so that we can have peace and harmony among our various religious groups. 3. If the government respects or supports one religion, it must do the same to all religions. A good example of this is how an Oklahoman city council commissioned a statue of the Ten Commandments on the building's premises. Because of their commission of the Ten Commandments, a group identifying as the Satanic Temple is also petitioning to erect a statue right next to the ten commandments. The statue portrays two children sitting on Satan's lap next to a stone tablet of a pentagram. . http://www.theverge.com... The group has stated that they will not attempt to put it on government grounds if the Ten Commandments are taken off of state property. If the government decides that the Ten Commandments are allowed to be placed there while the Satanic Statue is not, then it will be effectively take a stance respecting and supporting one religion over the other. The fact is that this problem is a giant waste of time that could have been avoided by not placing the Ten Commandments there in the first place. The government should not concern itself with issues of religion and instead should avoid the problem of a religious power struggle by separating itself from religion. There is simply no reason for a statue of the Ten Commandments or a statue of Satan to be erected on government property. Ultimately, people who support the merger of religion and government are advocating for only their religion to be merged into government; not any other religion. The United States is and should continue to be a secular nation that does not discriminate or prefer any religious group over the other. One of the most important indicators of a free nation is freedom of religion, and separation of any religion from government. I agree with you that a student should not be suspended for praying aloud during lunch; that seems rather excessive. Of course you should be free to pray during school, as annoying as that may be to other people. If a student is punished for praying during school, then that is a violation of the First Amendment's statement that the government should not prohibit the free exercise of religion. A Muslim student should be allowed to pray during school since he is required by his faith to pray five times a day. He just shouldn't pray during class time when the student is supposed to be paying attention. In fact if the student is doing anything other than pay attention while the teacher is lecturing, then that is valid grounds for punishment. In that case, it is only because the student wasn't paying attention; not because the student was praying. But if you want to pray outside of class time or during work time, sure. There's nothing objectively wrong about that. Although I imagine praying aloud would be quite annoying to some people and probably wouldn't be allowed. As far as I'm concerned, you can talk to any deity or invisible person you want if your school work is done or if you are out of class. You can write a letter to Santa, pray to Vishnu, pray to Allah; whatever you want just so long as you aren't irritating people around you. If you do this though, don't be surprised and don't complain when people challenge you on your faith or display their Islamic faith or atheism. Despite this, teachers should not bring their religion to school. They are government workers who are educating youth and should not advocate Islam, or Hinduism, or Christianity during class. The government simply asks that teachers take a Socratic Seminar type of approach to religion and exhibit no opinions about it. Basically they should let the students come to their own conclusions. Teachers should not be allowed to advocate their religion or lack thereof to a group of young and impressionable minds. They are government workers subject to the same laws as every other government worker while they are on the job. Thus, I hope people come to see how important separation of religion from government is in a religiously diverse and peaceful society. In order to maintain good relations and harmony, the government must remain neutral on religion.