Basic and fundamental are the rights declared in the Constitution that the state itself, acting through the body politic puts a limit to its supposed limitless powers. The constitution does not grant these powers nor convey the same to the people, however, the constitutional provisions act as limitations on the part of the government and its officials as against the defenseless citizens for unwarranted abuses on their rights. Among the rights protected by it is the freedom of religion including the corollary right to freedom of irreligion and the non-establishment clause. As opposed to the sovereign power of the state, the constitution guarantees that there shall be separation of church and state. This paper shall look into the origin and rationale of the doctrine on separation of church and state, the response of early Americans and the consequent impact of the same on religion or irreligion.
History
Prior to the days of liberation, there were still scattered American people. They were ruled under the crown of England, which administration was directly governed by the laws of the church. The rule of the Crown was not appealing to the people, abuses on the rights on one hand and limitations on the acts of the people were unreasonably imposed. In this regard, the government was highly reflective of the abusive religious practices; and the rulers being officers of the Church at the same time, the government was seen as a reflection of the church or at least as an extension of the church. To this end, Thomas Paine advocated the American liberation and encouraged revolution against the abusive crown. This prompted the creation of a unified America as it is now. He advocated the principle that religious practices must not enslave the people to the point of doing injustice to them and curtailing the basic natural rights. Liberation came and the declaration of independence was advocated by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. While both claim for divine providence, the declaration and subsequent statements gave emphasis on the creation of a wall between the church and the state. The basic natural rights of the people in relation to the government can not be interfered by abusive acts of religion#.
Rationale
Jefferson# opined that the powers of the government extend only to the actions and not to opinions and beliefs of the people. Thus, the reach of governmental regulation could not limit or control one of the basic tenets of liberation – freedom of religion. Religion is a delicate relationship limited between the church and the people, it being a rule of conscience. It is personal right which the state has no right to interfere. It has been noted that governmental actions are at times opposed to the rules of the conscience, thus, one can not interfere with the other. The concept of the separation of church and state has thus founded on the laws of nature. It can be noted however that the laws on nature in part is a recognition of a Supreme Being who has ruled over the universe and upon the acts of man. The seemingly opposing concepts can be reconciled. The evils brought about by abuses using supposed religious teachings, practices and beliefs can not be used to corrupt the minds of the people in an attempt to govern and lead them towards a progressive nation. The present wordings of the Constitution are implicit recognition of the fear of early and present day Americans that the unwarranted abuses of the Crown and the struggle during the period of liberation would not be repeated in the history of America.Interpretation/Amendments/Exceptions
Having established the separation of church and state clause, the Constitution explicitly recognized the seeming contrast between the reach and the consequent powers of the church and the state. The constitution is explicit in declaring that the legislature can not enact laws that would require any form of entanglement between the church and the state. Thus, Congress can not enact laws that would require for instance certain religious qualifications for any governmental position. Considering the opposing roles each have, allowing otherwise would allow clergymen to participate in the performance of governmental functions. Consequently moreover, it would result in the active participation of government officials to interfere on purely ecclesiastical matters, matters which are supposed to be beyond the reach of governmental regulation. This rule on non-entanglement of religion and state prevents the evils from either power to interfere with the other and in no way control or unreasonably limits the rights of man particularly the very solemn right to freedom of religion#.
Another point is the provision prohibiting Congress from adopting any religion, favoring one religion over another or favoring religion or irreligion. This provision is aimed at preventing the Church to make use of governmental powers to achieve its goals. Otherwise, men’s civil rights would directly be prejudiced. The requirement of religion over irreligion or one religion over another would limit the right to unlimited freedom of belief and faith – the very evil sought to be prevented by the Constitution.
A contrary rule of the foregoing provision would consequently impose punishments and acts of man in case of non-compliance. This would run counter to the very essence of the freedom itself. It is worth to emphasize that the freedom of belief on religion or irreligion for that matter is limitless. One can not be penalized and required to suffer solely by reason of his beliefs#.
While the Constitution prevents any act from Congress that would require excessive entanglement between religion and the state, the provision could not be interpreted as an iron-clad rule. The law allows the state to grant allowances for instance for clergymen who work for the government. This could not be said to be one of an intrusion over ecclesiastical matters with purely secular regulations. In fact, it is considered as one way of preventing any entanglement between the two. Preventing clergymen to receive compensation from the government would only create a conflict on the interpretation of governmental policies which have the effect of unreasonably excluding them from the benefits of rendering services to the government. Otherwise stated, to allow the opposite view would only stimulate the evil which the Constitution seeks to prevent.
Another exception to the rule is the provision allowing religion to be taught in public schools provided that it should not be to the expense of the government. While supportive of any religion, this can be explained under police power of the state aimed at promoting the general welfare of young children. This moreover does not involve excessive entanglement between religion and the state.
Current jurisprudence moreover has prohibit the state from prosecuting students from saluting while singing the national anthem as this would be contrary to the teachings of the religious church. These and other jurisprudential developments show the broadening of the scope of freedom of religion and the principle of the separation of church and state.
History
Prior to the days of liberation, there were still scattered American people. They were ruled under the crown of England, which administration was directly governed by the laws of the church. The rule of the Crown was not appealing to the people, abuses on the rights on one hand and limitations on the acts of the people were unreasonably imposed. In this regard, the government was highly reflective of the abusive religious practices; and the rulers being officers of the Church at the same time, the government was seen as a reflection of the church or at least as an extension of the church. To this end, Thomas Paine advocated the American liberation and encouraged revolution against the abusive crown. This prompted the creation of a unified America as it is now. He advocated the principle that religious practices must not enslave the people to the point of doing injustice to them and curtailing the basic natural rights. Liberation came and the declaration of independence was advocated by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. While both claim for divine providence, the declaration and subsequent statements gave emphasis on the creation of a wall between the church and the state. The basic natural rights of the people in relation to the government can not be interfered by abusive acts of religion#.
Rationale
Jefferson# opined that the powers of the government extend only to the actions and not to opinions and beliefs of the people. Thus, the reach of governmental regulation could not limit or control one of the basic tenets of liberation – freedom of religion. Religion is a delicate relationship limited between the church and the people, it being a rule of conscience. It is personal right which the state has no right to interfere. It has been noted that governmental actions are at times opposed to the rules of the conscience, thus, one can not interfere with the other. The concept of the separation of church and state has thus founded on the laws of nature. It can be noted however that the laws on nature in part is a recognition of a Supreme Being who has ruled over the universe and upon the acts of man. The seemingly opposing concepts can be reconciled. The evils brought about by abuses using supposed religious teachings, practices and beliefs can not be used to corrupt the minds of the people in an attempt to govern and lead them towards a progressive nation. The present wordings of the Constitution are implicit recognition of the fear of early and present day Americans that the unwarranted abuses of the Crown and the struggle during the period of liberation would not be repeated in the history of America.Interpretation/Amendments/Exceptions
Having established the separation of church and state clause, the Constitution explicitly recognized the seeming contrast between the reach and the consequent powers of the church and the state. The constitution is explicit in declaring that the legislature can not enact laws that would require any form of entanglement between the church and the state. Thus, Congress can not enact laws that would require for instance certain religious qualifications for any governmental position. Considering the opposing roles each have, allowing otherwise would allow clergymen to participate in the performance of governmental functions. Consequently moreover, it would result in the active participation of government officials to interfere on purely ecclesiastical matters, matters which are supposed to be beyond the reach of governmental regulation. This rule on non-entanglement of religion and state prevents the evils from either power to interfere with the other and in no way control or unreasonably limits the rights of man particularly the very solemn right to freedom of religion#.
Another point is the provision prohibiting Congress from adopting any religion, favoring one religion over another or favoring religion or irreligion. This provision is aimed at preventing the Church to make use of governmental powers to achieve its goals. Otherwise, men’s civil rights would directly be prejudiced. The requirement of religion over irreligion or one religion over another would limit the right to unlimited freedom of belief and faith – the very evil sought to be prevented by the Constitution.
A contrary rule of the foregoing provision would consequently impose punishments and acts of man in case of non-compliance. This would run counter to the very essence of the freedom itself. It is worth to emphasize that the freedom of belief on religion or irreligion for that matter is limitless. One can not be penalized and required to suffer solely by reason of his beliefs#.
While the Constitution prevents any act from Congress that would require excessive entanglement between religion and the state, the provision could not be interpreted as an iron-clad rule. The law allows the state to grant allowances for instance for clergymen who work for the government. This could not be said to be one of an intrusion over ecclesiastical matters with purely secular regulations. In fact, it is considered as one way of preventing any entanglement between the two. Preventing clergymen to receive compensation from the government would only create a conflict on the interpretation of governmental policies which have the effect of unreasonably excluding them from the benefits of rendering services to the government. Otherwise stated, to allow the opposite view would only stimulate the evil which the Constitution seeks to prevent.
Another exception to the rule is the provision allowing religion to be taught in public schools provided that it should not be to the expense of the government. While supportive of any religion, this can be explained under police power of the state aimed at promoting the general welfare of young children. This moreover does not involve excessive entanglement between religion and the state.
Current jurisprudence moreover has prohibit the state from prosecuting students from saluting while singing the national anthem as this would be contrary to the teachings of the religious church. These and other jurisprudential developments show the broadening of the scope of freedom of religion and the principle of the separation of church and state.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment