Separation of Church and State

I will construct my case by first examining the nature of Separation of Church and State, then exploring the de jure status of the separation in the U. S. , and finally by exploring the de facto status of the separation in the U. S. --------------------The 1st Amendment of the U. S. Constitutions reads, in part [1]:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " -------------------- ARGUMENTS Point One: The Nature of the Separation of Church and State, and the Establishment ClauseThe phrase "separation" can be defined as the state of being apart. Thus, when religion is apart from government, separation of church and state is attained. This does not mean that people cannot hold and make decisions influenced by their own personal moralities, but rather that the government is not theocratic in nature. "Separation of church and state is a concept based in the Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause was extended to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and prohibits laws dealing with the establishment of religion. Neither the state or federal government may enact laws which aid one or all religions, or give a preference to one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion. " [2]In this way, it seems like separation of church and state is definitionally part of the U. S. Constitution. It is an inseparable part of the foundations of our nation. Inasmuch as we cannot be a theocracy, we have assured ourselves a comfortable separation from religion. This is a prima facie reason to affirm because definitionally, we have separation of church and state in the status quo already. Point Two: De Jure SeparationWhen we talk about "what is" we can look at it from both a formal and an informal perspective. For instance, it is illegal in the Netherlands to smoke pot, but, because those laws are not enforced, it is effectively legal to do so. Therefore, I shall examine both de jure and de facto aspects of the separation in the U. S. There are several key Court Cases I will cite that illustrate that the Supreme Court has interpreted the laws so as to ensure a distance between religion and government. 1. McCollum v. Board of Eduction: Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional. [3]2. Burstyn v. Wilson: Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs. [3, 4]3. Torcaso v. Watkins: Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. [3, 5]4. Engel v. Vitale: Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion. [3, 6]5. Abington School District v. Schempp: Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional. [3]6. Epperson v. Arkansas: State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions. [3, 7]7. Lee v. Weisman: Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. [3, 8]8. Church of Lukumi Babalu v. Hialeah: City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion. [3] These rulings go to show 3 key things: A. A clear distance is being maintained between religion and state authority B. Government is unable to enforce religious doctrines or to impose religious laws upon its citizenry C. Government is unable to actively oppress certain religions and promote others. Thus, from a de jure perspective, the topic is affirmed. An, we can also see this de jure separation in the Treaty of Tripoli, which declares, legally, that the U. S. is not a "Christian" nation. [10]Point Three: De facto SeparationThe U. S. is a majority Christian nation, yet many of the policies our governments have enacted have been counter to Christian philosophy. Several prominent examples include abortion, gay marriage, and contraception covered by insurers. While not all Christians hold views opposing the liberalisaztion of these issues in U. S. politics, it is important to note that many do, and that they do so on the basis of moral and ethical beliefs informed by their religion. The fact that the U. S. can overcome such barriers and move towards a more secular society shows that, at the very least, there is some de facto separation. One excellent exemplar of the Government taking real, positive action in the status quo toward separation of church an state can be evidence in a recent case regarding a display of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky. "Displays of the Ten Commandments have become a flashpoint in the religious right's campaign to inject more Christianity into public life. .. [the] Supreme Court strongly reaffirmed its commitment to government neutrality toward religion. It rejected the argument that the counties had a secular purpose for the displays. They were promoting religion, the court held, and violating the Constitution by doing so. " [9]It seems then that there is too a distance in de facto governance between separation of church and state, affirming the topic still further. Before I close, I would like to make one final remark about the intent of the Establishment Clause. Jefferson himself said about it: " 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 & State. " [10]SOURCES1 - . http://www.usconstitution.net...2 - . http://definitions.uslegal.com...3 - . http://infidels.org...4 - . http://everything2.com...5 - . http://www.answers.com...6 - . http://www.oyez.org...7 - . http://www.bc.edu...8 - . http://www.oyez.org...9 - . http://www.nytimes.com...10 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...I would like to apologize for the brevity of my arguments--I was rushed and would have been more fulsome in my points had more time been available. Regardless, I do believe the topic has been thoroughly affirmed. I now turn this discourse over to Con. ..