Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions and Political Debate

The only power the secular government should have are matters of “actions only, & not opinions.” These words echo that of Luther who believed that “... need no ruler ought to prevent anyone from teaching or believing what he pleases, whether Gospel or lies. It is enough if he prevents the teaching of sedition and rebellion (Luther, 22).” Two hundred years later, the influence of Luther’s theology and concept of the separation of Church and state influenced those who founded of the United States of America. This would then lead them to make the separation of Church and state the cornerstone of modern

As the authors contend, the purpose of a democratic government was not to produce moral citizens, but rather, moral citizens had the duty of preserving and acting as the custodians of democracy. In this regard, the business of morality was effectively relegated to the realms of private concerns (Kramnick and Moore 151). Midway through this penultimate chapter, the book turns to demonstrating the problems created by the religious right. The discussion provides a historical account of the debate concerning the separation of the state and the church, and contends that the present religious right misapprehends American history, especially with regard to the framing of the constitution, and endeavors to distort both religion and politics by using religious or spiritual ties in achieving political

This paper is a book critique of The Godless Constitution. The first chapter of the book is titled “Is America a Christian Nation?” and it is an introduction for the rest of the book. In this chapter, the main idea is to open the reader’s mind about that the constitution was created with the idea that religious believes will not influence in the politics of the nation. The authors state that “The principal framers of the American political system wanted no religious parties in national politics” (Kramnick and Moore, 23). Actually, the creation of a constitution without influence of religion was not an act of irreverence. The authors believe that the creation of the constitution was a support to the idea that religion can preserve the civil morality necessary for democracy, without an influence on any political party. The end of the chapter is the description of the following chapters and with a disguise warning that both authors were raise in religious families and they wrote the book with high respect for America’s religious traditions (Kramnick and Moore, 25). The second chapter, called “The Godless Constitution” explains how the different terms to talk about God were taken out and a “no religious test” clause was adopted with little discussion. This clause was a “veritable firestorm” during the ratification debates in several states (Kramnick and Moore, 32). For many people the “no religious test” clause was considered as the gravest defect of the Constitution (Kramnick

The separation of church and state is an ongoing debate that effects everyone, even if you are not aware of it. There are many arguments to this debate, and both sides are heavily supported. I will be analyzing two sources that support the separation of church and state but used two different forms of rhetoric to support the separation.

Kramnick and Moore write their book to establish an understanding of were God should be in society and government. They use interpretations of men from the history of the United States to gather knowledge on how to regard religion in our government. They give a timeless solution to an understanding of what our government is trying to establish. They propose

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

Under the approach of “freedom for religion,” religion is recognized as something special and positive, and the religious freedom should be particularly designed to ensure the function of religion. However, the idea is not that the government should demand religious observances or establish a state religion; it is, instead, that a political community should commit to positive secularity. Positive secularity means that the government recognizes the value and importance of religion to the society, while maintaining secularism, treats religion positively and making laws that ensure the function and development of religious groups.

Fully explain your answer and make sure to demonstrate in your answer that you have thoroughly read the course readings for the week.   Throughout the article, the national controversy of religion and politics will grow tremendously over the years. The Government is not allowed to favor religious sides over nonreligious sides, but in many situations they still do. According to the article, "Government should not take sides when it comes to religion, either to favor one particular religious people generally over nonreligious people" (p.23).

Because the state is the enactor of policies and proposals that affect its constituents’ lives, it also must define the secular and the religious, which ultimately leads to a privileging of some forms of religiosity over others. For instance, in reference to the Turkish government’s policy proposals elevating the Alevi minority’s status, Hurd concludes that “these [legal] designations marginalize multiform and dissenting forms of religiosity, occluding a broader field of human activity, investments, and practices that may or may not be captured in the set of human goings-on identified as religion” (107). Here the state attempts to craft particular religious groups in order to gain some sort of special legitimacy within the public sphere; however, by doing this, the state not only molds a particular religious subjectivity but also rejects the one’s which cannot be framed within the model of the public sphere. Unlike Charles Taylor’s emphasis that the public sphere is “a locus in which rational views [that the governed consent] are elaborated which guide the government,” it is the modern state government that ultimately creates the governed, who will participate within the public sphere

In today’s world, religion plays a profound part in many people’s lives and they find it important to firmly follow the guiding principles of a religion. Religion has been

There has been much debate on whether or not the United States has been doing the right thing by keeping church and state as separate entities rather than keeping them entwined as had been the standard for centuries prior to the country’s founding. The list of influences this law could affect is substantial, ranging from the workplace to school functions. Even the way people decorate their offices and houses has come into question from time to time. However, remarkably, every person has a different style of argument and a different way of looking at the available facts. I intend to compare two very different argument styles on both sides of this issue, and how two capable writers use completely different methods of research,

America wastes a lot of time trying to create a democracy completely absent of the moral expectations that our ancestors have put into place. Our founding fathers’ dream of establishing a country in which all people would be accepted has begun to fall. In our attempt to rid our country of a democracy contaminated with any belief in a supreme power, we have rid ourselves of many of our values and morals. Perhaps it is impossible for religion to dominate our political country, but we have misinterpreted the original intent of “separation of church and state” and taken this concept too far.

respect to religion: the right to be free from government-imposed religion and a right to practice

Politics and religion are two of the toughest matters to deliberate with people of any area. The only item more problematic to have a heart-to-heart about than politics and religion is the practice of taking religious means and interpretations into the political jurisdiction. Some of the most controversial and newest topics in present-day society are those that are deeply affected by religious means such as abortion, legalization of same sex marriage, and warfare. Richard Rorty and Alan Stout have very conflicting views over when and if it is socially acceptable to bring religion into a discussion over public concerns. Although neither philosopher prohibits the practice of religious support in an argument, Rorty believes that using religion in the conversation dealing with public concern is ignorant, senseless, and irresponsible.1

We need to pay close attention to the effects of secularism: confining the role of religion to the private domain of the individual and creating a dichotomy between "religious" and "worldly," between "private" and "public." It denies religion and its mediating institutions any public function and influence in shaping matters of public policy.