[ad_1]
The US Constitution’s First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion or prohibiting its free exercise. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 extended this to prohibit discrimination based on religion. However, the separation of church and state remains a contentious issue, with lawsuits against government agencies endorsing specific religions. While the US government is not tied to any one church, political candidates use their religious status to appeal to voters. The separation of church and state is not complete, as evidenced by references to God on currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance. The question of whether there is a separation of church and state in the US is constantly debated.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, commonly known as part of the Bill of Rights, states in part that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of any religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Much later , the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went broadly to prohibit discrimination based on religion or association with those of any religion. A key court case that helped promote the concept of separation of church and state was the 1947 Supreme Court case known as Everson v. Board of Education, in which it was considered embezzlement of funds to use school money to transport children to religious events. In 1962, this separation was further extended by banning group prayer in the school, especially if composed or organized by teachers or administrators.
Despite these laws, the separation of church and state remains a burning issue, with many other lawsuits pending against various governments or public agencies that would appear to endorse a specific religion by their actions. In general, much of the way the US government works is not specifically tied to any one church. However, political candidates have certainly used their religious status to appeal to those of similar religious views.
It is difficult to argue that separation is complete in the United States. The postal service, for example, does not deliver mail on Sundays, which makes no sense to those who celebrate the Sabbath, which falls on the Sabbath. Similarly, Christmas is a federal holiday, but Hanukah is not, nor is Rosh Hashanah. Government offices do not observe the fasting practices of Ramadan.
US currency and the Pledge of Allegiance (not taken by Jehovah’s Witnesses) also refer to God, although they do not refer to a specific religion. There has been a recent movement to drop the reference “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, but any pledge to a flag can be interpreted by some religious groups as placing a nation above God.
As far as prayer in public schools is concerned, the idea of the separation of church and state becomes blurred and the laws become very difficult to interpret. In some schools, even asking for a moment of silence is viewed as crossing dangerous territory, yet many US presidents sign presidential addresses pleading with God to bless America. Also, some people won’t vote for presidential (or political) candidates who don’t go to church or have a religion they feel conflicts with them. So religion has some influence over who runs the United States and who is in charge.
In courts across the nation, people can swear their testimony is true on a Bible, and there are several states where political officials take oaths that include the words God. Chaplains are employed by the military, and military officers can pray during meals, even if this is voluntary. It is quite clear from these examples that the separation of church and state is not total. It is also clear that the framers of the US Constitution built specific moral codes into the work that suggest a belief in God, and while the intent may have been that a church should not have control over government, it may not have been that of eliminating belief in God or acknowledging commonalities among many Christian groups, making the United States a “God-fearing nation” or marking the currency with statements such as “in God we trust.”
So the question of whether there is a separation of church and state in the United States is under constant scrutiny. There are those who argue that the state minimally involves any “church” being referred to and others argue that a Christian religious viewpoint remains a constant influence on government and is preferred by the state. Every US citizen must ask whether this matters, and if so, how much; if the practice of a specific religion in the state context infringes the rights of others or offends their free religious practice; and how many people have divided church and state and whether a more or less intentional or useful division.
[ad_2]