David Platt's Counter Culture

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe (SFISD V. Doe) case, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented, “It [the ruling] bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life” (“United”). Separating religion and state has always been a matter of concern for the United States, as shown by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of our constitution. Although there have been many cases revolving around the relationship between the church and the state, SFISD V. Doe is among the most notable. By examining the background, reflecting on the decision, and analyzing the impact of the SFISD V. Doe case,

Reno, R.R. "Defending religious liberty." First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life 225 (2012): 3+. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

The Canada (Attorney General) v. Big M Drug Mart (1985) case is an example of a case that could not be tolerated because it began to harm people around. The moment it harms people is when it should not be tolerated. They found that the government could not force individuals to conform to religious practices or follow certain religious beliefs (Canada v. Big M Drug Mart, 1985). Also, in the case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Edwards Books and Art (1986), we notice that the state has the duty of religious neutrality. It applies back to being tolerable with religions and having the state stay neutral between religions and society. Therefore we should be tolerating all religions and not excluding religions because one should not feel obligated to compel to certain

In “Working it Out” by Diana Eck, she writes about religious oppression in the workplace. The examples she gives on the many ways people have been fired, or the ways in which people's faiths have been compromised, reiterates that the amendment that states freedom of religion in the United States, is

David Barton’s Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion, breaks down the significance of how religion was intended in the First Amendment and its effect on the phrase, “Separation of Church and State.” Barton well illustrates how the founding fathers incorporated the position of religion into the First Amendment. Barton explains how the House Judiciary Committee believes, “The founders did respect other religions; however, they neither promoted pluralism nor intended that the First Amendment do so” (175). They continue to discuss how the founding fathers were all Christians and they expect it to remain that way in the lives of the citizens. In Barton’s views of the First Amendment, he believes it has changed dramastically

When discussing the intertwining of church and state; soul liberty and freedom from religious belief, we must recognize that freedom and faith were at one point complementary ideas. Faith was once the foundation for freedom and vice versa. The Declaration of Independence clearly states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights." With these words from the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers set up their vision of what this country would come to be. Among those rights, which are deemed “inalienable”, is the right of religious liberty. (Neumann, 1990: p. 241)

Today’s world is all about decisions. Should we get that new television? What about that new iPhone? Maybe the new Apple Watch? Notice how none of those questions had to deal with anything transcendent or in relation to God. Rather these questions focused on the material items that are available practically at the snap of one’s fingers. There is a lack of religious authority in cultural and social organizations in the modern society that we live in. Charles Taylor, in A Secular Age, focuses on showing that God is still present in our secular society, even when it seems as if He is removed. Taylor gives three separate understandings of secularization: separation between state and church with the movement of corporate practices without God, more

In his article is repeats the concept of “discussing religion just as we discuss other beliefs”. At this time, Lindsay uses one of his colleagues at the Center for Inquiry to advocate the opposing argument. Dr. Austin Dacey’s book, The Secular Conscience, in his book “Dacey does not think it is a good thing for religious tenets to influence public policy, but he does maintain that religious beliefs can permissible advance as a justification for policies during public debates” (Lindsay). By implementing this source in his article Lindsay is pointing out that there is another justifiable side of the argument. This strategy is compelling to Lindsay’s argument, because he is able to poke holes in the base of the opposing side of the argument and why it could never worked. At one point in the article Lindsay inserts an excerpt from Dacey’s book for the purpose of employing a counter argument. Lindsay states that “the problem with Dacey’s proposal is that religious belief is not something usually held to the same standards of consistency, rationality, and evidential support as are other beliefs on which public policy might be based, and that includes moral beliefs” (Lindsay), and therefor shouldn’t be implemented in the government. Lindsay’s implementation of the counter argument establishes his credibility on the topic of discussion. For an article to be considered good writing in politics it has to be able to tell both sides of an argument, while giving valuable evidence on why their personal opinion is

In the documentary A New Eden: God in America, the class was given the opportunity to explore America’s chase to religious freedom and the political challenges it took to achieve such and opportunity where people for the first time were given a chance to seek religious faith that was not imposed upon them, but one that they can personally choose to live for themselves. The problem that would come about during the arrival Catholic immigrants’ as it was thought to believe their arrival would come to oppose the very religious they worked so hard for, while from their perspective they were merely trying to live an average life in America with all it has to offer just like everyone has. The challenge was most expressed in a judicial case of public

Today our theology is changing. We are less tolerant to religion. An academic scholar believes, “Tolerance is a uniquely human phenomenon, construct and concept. It is therefore of import that the inculcation of (religious) tolerance in terms of culture, religion, habits, customs, clothing, cuisine, manners et cetera should start at an early age” (Potgieter et al. 6). Americans, as a whole, seem to be in a race of religious dominance. Americans, and people in general, do not like believing or thinking our perceptions are incorrect. We corner and judge others who do not share our ideology. This comes from fear. People fear being wrong and fear unfamiliar thought and actions. A teacher of mine, Mr. Carter, believes we live with “blinders” over our eyes. When the majority of us see a woman wearing a hijab or a man of Indian descent we automatically assume they are a terrorist. We know absolutely nothing about the person except that they follow a religion that is assumed to be consisted of terrorists. Isn’t our country supposed to be founded on religious freedom? This is not the only case of religious misjudgment. Our country experiences a multitude of these infractions daily; however, many of these infringements do not require federal action. Unknown or misinterpreted moral issues are resolved in

Even when the Constitution establishes a separation between church and state, traces of religion can still be found in public and government environments, such as the Pledge of Allegiance containing the words ‘under God’, American currency having ‘In God we trust’ and other such events and places. Consequently, this prevalence of Christian ideology violates all Americans’ first amendment right to freedom of and from religion and has a negative impact all citizens as it conflicts with their individual beliefs, religious or not.

The act of defining religion has been a contentious issue in a wide variety of situations, particularly in the United States. The US is a nation that prides itself on religious inclusivity and freedom. There are consequences to this belief and tenant. Through the social, legal and moral structures of the United States, defining religion has become imperative. In The Impossibility of Religious Freedom, Winifred Sullivan outlines the legal implications of defining religion in the United States. In order for religious freedom to be protected by the American state, religion must be clearly defined. As a result, religious theory must be used to maintain some semblance of religious freedom in the United States. Likewise, Josh Dubler’s Down in

Summary: The division between church and state is a gray line that is often crossed and argued about. For example, Gwen Wilde, the author, argues that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance requires people who do not believe in God to recite something they do not necessarily believe in. If a person chose not to say the full Pledge, including to utter the words “under God” they run the risk of being called unpatriotic. The author continually argues that the words “under God” add a religious doctrine that not all Americans believe in.

When the boundary between Church and state is clouded, men may begin to “believe they are performing a bold action in killing anyone who does not accept its gods”

We are not speaking here of the secularist idea that the state should marginalize religion and discourage people from voting their consciences as Christians. We are talking about the idea that church and state are not the same thing and that they have different spheres of activity.