Tuesday, September 13, 2005
On "The Separation of Church and State"
I found it very interesting that in my humanities 399-class textbook there was a reference to "the separation of church and state" and how that idea has allowed for an open religious market in the United States. My interest was peaked once again when, in the lecture section, the same ideas were repeated using the same terms.
The last time I checked the phrase "separation of church and state" is not used in the constitution, which was the source cited for the reference. I know that this has been a topic of some discussion by many other people, but the link between that and the "open religious market," meaning the freedom to choose from a variety of religions, was interesting and worth noting.
I think that what most people are actually referencing when they mention "the separation of church and state" is the first article in the amendments which states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It seems that a lack of establishment has been interpreted to mean separation; the two are not the same. A lack of establishment simply means that the government will not impose a particular religion on people, whereas a separation implies a complete division. Lately, the latter interpretation seems to have been the prevalent one, and this is somewhat disturbing. After all, if we can interpret the constitution in any way we see fit, what purpose does it actually serve?
The idea that there is a free market for religions in the United States is also interesting. Though I basically agree with that idea, I disagree with the idea that it arose from a separation between church and state. Rather, it seems to have arisen from a free dialogue between people and that is allowed by a lack of established religion. I also wonder if religion actually could be considered a market, since many of the ideas that we apply to markets are difficult to apply in the situation of religions.
I hope that there is a way that we can return to a more careful interpretation of the constitution, especially when it used in an educational context. It is slightly disturbing when a professor makes what I would consider a factual error, simply because they hold certain opinions. If the constitution is to remain a useful document, it needs to retain a certain amount of integrity of meaning when it is interpreted.
The last time I checked the phrase "separation of church and state" is not used in the constitution, which was the source cited for the reference. I know that this has been a topic of some discussion by many other people, but the link between that and the "open religious market," meaning the freedom to choose from a variety of religions, was interesting and worth noting.
I think that what most people are actually referencing when they mention "the separation of church and state" is the first article in the amendments which states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It seems that a lack of establishment has been interpreted to mean separation; the two are not the same. A lack of establishment simply means that the government will not impose a particular religion on people, whereas a separation implies a complete division. Lately, the latter interpretation seems to have been the prevalent one, and this is somewhat disturbing. After all, if we can interpret the constitution in any way we see fit, what purpose does it actually serve?
The idea that there is a free market for religions in the United States is also interesting. Though I basically agree with that idea, I disagree with the idea that it arose from a separation between church and state. Rather, it seems to have arisen from a free dialogue between people and that is allowed by a lack of established religion. I also wonder if religion actually could be considered a market, since many of the ideas that we apply to markets are difficult to apply in the situation of religions.
I hope that there is a way that we can return to a more careful interpretation of the constitution, especially when it used in an educational context. It is slightly disturbing when a professor makes what I would consider a factual error, simply because they hold certain opinions. If the constitution is to remain a useful document, it needs to retain a certain amount of integrity of meaning when it is interpreted.
Comments:
<< Home
I'm curious about the meaning of "a kind of de facto separation."
One reason I'm not sure what this might mean is because I know that at the time the Constitution was ratified at least 2 states had established government religions. Further, President Washington's public speeches often appealed to religious understanding. Even President Jefferson used his executive powers to declare national days of prayer and thanks to God. Some historians have apparently called one of President Lincoln's speeches the greatest political speech ever, and the speech was premised on what seems a Christian view of God.
I don't see such actions by our elected leaders to be inconsistent with the Constitutional words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." But, I also think such actions would not be consistent with the idea of "separation of church and state." So, I guess I think the 2 distinct clauses, if found in a constitution, would have to mean distinctly different things regarding what government can and cannot do.
What do you think?
Post a Comment
One reason I'm not sure what this might mean is because I know that at the time the Constitution was ratified at least 2 states had established government religions. Further, President Washington's public speeches often appealed to religious understanding. Even President Jefferson used his executive powers to declare national days of prayer and thanks to God. Some historians have apparently called one of President Lincoln's speeches the greatest political speech ever, and the speech was premised on what seems a Christian view of God.
I don't see such actions by our elected leaders to be inconsistent with the Constitutional words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." But, I also think such actions would not be consistent with the idea of "separation of church and state." So, I guess I think the 2 distinct clauses, if found in a constitution, would have to mean distinctly different things regarding what government can and cannot do.
What do you think?
<< Home
