Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Church and state shouldn’t merge

Religious Reflections

Published: Thursday, October 11, 2012

Updated: Thursday, October 11, 2012 15:10

In the United States, the separation of church and state is an issue that should not be overlooked.

It is understood that the church and state are supposed to operate alone, but the two often merge together and create a grey area. Often one influences the other and problems arise in both organizations.

Church and government are two separate institutions that should act alone without the influence of the other.

While the Constitution’s First Amendment allows Americans the freedom of religion, some government and church officials believe that a strong connection between church and state would unify the country.

Although Americans do want to be unified, the joining of church and state would not aid this cause.

There are so many religions practiced in America; therefore, no one would know which religion to follow, and chaos would ensue. Because of this, the church and the government should be independent of each other.

Unity is a possibility; however, any move towards the connection of church and state is a direct violation of The Constitution, due to the First Amendment’s clause that prohibits the government from placing a restraint on or showing favor for any religion.

Personally, I do not like the idea of anyone telling me what to practice. It just leans too close to the government or the church taking control of my whole life. No one has the right to tell you what religion to practice.

In the Constitution, every American citizen is granted the right to practice their own religion freely without fear of oppression from the government. It would be an infringement upon the rights of certain citizens if a church and the United States merged together.

If the United States and the Catholic Church, or any church, were to come together, Americans would lose their identities and freedoms.

An example of people attempting to merge the church and state is prayer in public schools. Public schools throughout the world prefer students to avoid the subject of religion.

For those who send their children to public schools because they either practice a certain religion or have no religious affiliation, the act of prayer is an infringement on their rights as Americans.

Courts have barred the practice of prayers at public school graduations because the prayers are usually specific to one religion.

Some parents argue that their children should have the right to say prayers in classrooms at public schools. Children have the right to discuss religion at public schools, but it is discouraged to avoid conflict with other students who do not practice the same religion.

However, some argue that stopping a student from praying at his or her graduation is an infringement against the right to freedom of speech.

The major question in the public school situation is whether taking religion out of the school, or not allowing the students to speak of religion, is an infringement on the rights of religious students. However, is it not also an infringement on the rights of nonreligious students to place religious icons in a building that is supposed to be considered a religion neutral environment, such as public schools?

The controversial matter of saying prayers in public schools has been argued in the United States for many years now. Although the United States has many religious schools, parents send their children to public schools for the benefits of not paying yearly tuition; yet some parents still complain that children should receive a religious education.

The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) classes are offered for children that wish to receive an education on the Bible, but the experience is different from attending a Catholic school.

Maybe Catholic schools should be cheaper for those parents that cannot afford to send their children there but would like to give their kids a Catholic education.

Or maybe we should not be arguing about freedom of speech any more.

Having the church and state connected would create government-controlling affairs pertaining to religion, meaning that the government would basically control every aspect of life.

The government has no right, according to the Constitution, to favor or prohibit any religion in the United States. The Framers of the Constitution intended for church and state to remain separate in order to keep the government from controlling every aspect of Americans’ lives.

People of other religions have the right to practice their religions freely in America, but that does not mean that they can infringe on the rights of others by openly flaunting their beliefs. Worship has a proper place and time to be done.

Kaitlyn O’Connor is a history sophomore and can be kfoconno@loyno.edu

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

7 comments

Nick Courtney
Fri Oct 19 2012 12:34
I never said your comment was inappropriate. I said your comment is an advancement of a point that, though related to the above article, is neither in the above article, nor really something that one could pull out of the author's confused thoughts (without a good deal of work and a better grounding in the themes already). The author has also written an article on same-sex marriage--one that also seems to suffer from some serious flaws and conflations of issues--for which your comment would be both exactly on topic and a great clarification of the some of the confusions rendered by the author. But this article is something about prayer in public schools, personal religious expression in public schools and the public sphere, and some naive belief in religious leaders who seek to directly establish a state religion.

Again, not saying your point is inappropriate. Just saying that your post is about starting a different, if related, conversation--one which seems to be going on extensively (if not always maturely) on the comment thread of the author's other article.

Anonymous
Fri Oct 19 2012 11:50
Nick,
I think my comment is most appropriate. The major reason that same-sex marriage is prohibited, and the legal benefits of marriage denied to same-sex couples, is because of religion. It is ok by me for a particular religion to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages, but it is not ok by me for any religion to impose its will on the law.
Nick Courtney
Thu Oct 18 2012 09:53
Dear Anonymous,

I think your stance is well-reasoned and it is one with which I would tend to agree. That said, it seems to me like you're using this article as a jumping-off point for your own point, not identifying a point in the article (by which I mean I don't even get "religion should not dictate public policy" from the article; obviously it doesn't contain your argument about same-sex marriage).

Anonymous
Sat Oct 13 2012 14:20
The point of the article is that religion should not dictate public policy. She mentions that one example of people attempting to merge the church and state is prayer in public schools. Another is same-sex marriage. The federal government, in the Defense of Marriage Act, defines marriage as between one man and one woman. People are entitled to the benefits of marriage if they are of opposite sexes. However, same-sex marriage is not recognized as a legal status in most places in the United States, nor is it recognized as a legal status by the federal government. This is a violation of the U.S. Constitution by cities, counties, states, and the federal government.

Marriage is (1) a legal status and (2) a religious bond. It is certainly within the rights of any religion to refuse to recognize and to marry people of the same gender. However, I believe that it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution to treat same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples. I am not concerned with who various religions choose to marry and who they refuse to marry. I do care when rights are violated because of pressure from religion. It won't be long before the Supreme Court recognizes the difference between what religion says and what the Constitution says.

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process.

As a result of the Equal Protection Clause of the U. S. Constitution mentioned above, it is unconstitutional for any state government or the federal government to deny same-sex couples the financial and other benefits provided to opposite-sex couples. These benefits include income taxes, health care, social security, and end-of-life decisions, to name four. Whether or not various religions recognize same-sex couples is not the issue. The issue is the denial of constitutional rights to same-sex couples. It won't be long before the U.S. Supreme Court takes up this issue and finds that what is being done all over the country is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Nick Courtney
Fri Oct 12 2012 11:13
A clarification on my first point, below:

I am not saying that public and religious figures don't make claims about the US's Christian heritage or aspects thereof, nor am I saying that there aren't many who dispute and debate the interpretation and extent of separation of church and state. I am saying that I know of no credible leaders so naive as to think a state religion could, in itself, bring unity.

(I've tried to post this follow-up once. I hope it works this time. I apologize if there's a double post at some point.)

Nick Courtney
Fri Oct 12 2012 11:08
A clarification on (1): There are plenty of leaders, especially Christians, who will argue about the country's Christian heritage or aspects thereof; and they will also argue over the interpretation and extent of separation of church and state. But that is not the same thing as attempting to establish a state church, nor is it demonstrating the naivete of believing a state religion could, in itself, bring unity.
Nick Courtney
Fri Oct 12 2012 10:56
Let me begin by admitting that I am no expert on the legal aspects of separation of Church and state--or any aspects of it, for that matter.

That said, I am a bit confused by this article. I will try to hit on at least a few reasons why.

1. I can't think of any credible religious figure I've ever seen or heard who has advocated a state religion for the US. I don't mean to say there are none; but I think that many--and sure, there are always extremists--have come to see (if sometimes begrudgingly) the model of the secular state as here to stay. So your claim that church officials see a state religion as a source of unity seems strange to me. That was once the case, centuries ago; but not even the most idealist leaders I know of would likely go so far today. The claim they might make, is that their faith is the true one, upon which the salvation of souls depends and so it would be better if the nation were all of that one faith--but that is a different claim and seems to reverse the order (the state could have a religious dimension because, ideally, all would already be united in faith).

2. With regards to public schools, I wonder at your claim that students are discouraged from talking about religion at school. It seems you are conflating sanctioned/endorsed prayer in public schools with personal expression of religious faith by students in public schools--perhaps a conflation of separation of church and state with one of religious faith and the public sphere, or religion and culture even. I think this is a common conflation and a dangerous one that leads to many confusions in this issue. Again, sanctioned/endorsed prayer in public schools is one argument (one which I often find confusing and overly politicized), expression of faith by students another.

3. That brings me to a final comment: I think you start to hit on something when you talk about a state religion seeming like the government would be controlling your whole life and identity. I would like to (somewhat) echo that, but reorient that to a positive point (not that I'm saying the government should enforce a specific faith, but that the observation hits on something good to think about). I think the reason many would feel that way is that religious faith is a deep and encompassing thing to a person, shaping his or her identity and worldview and--hopefully--infusing virtually all aspects of everyday life. Though this is hardly always the case (at least with most of the faithful I know), it is certainly the goal. That, I think is something many in the 21st-century (both avowedly religious and avowedly not) fail to see; many seem to think religious faith is just another factor in one's identity, another badge on one's affiliation-sash (along with hometown, NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL/FIFA team, favorite musical genre, etc.). I think this is a dangerous misconception and one that has led to much of the confusion surrounding separation of church and state, and especially its common conflation with the (I think foolish and impossible) attempts to separate religion and the public sphere.

I think I'll leave it there for now.

*Also, I am usually pretty hesitant to reply to respondents. The Maroon threads are troll country. #trollproof





log out