So the article that caught my eye was the one about the principal and the athletic director that are going to be on trial because of saying a prayer at a banquet. So the article peaked my interest because I have heard the comment before that "Separation of Church and State" is not even in the constitution and that the way we use it now was not the original intent. So before we dive into this, I noticed in the article above that they were turned in for improper proselytizing. I do feel that this is a strong word for asking a blessing on the food. But anyway, back on topic. The goal of this blog is to answer my 2 questions. Is the phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution and was that the orinal intent?
Due to time, I am going to take on the latter on for this blog. Was the original intent of the phrase "separation of church and state" to keep Christianity out of the school? I use Christianity here because this is the only religion that I see getting into trouble. I have not heard a lot of controversy from any other religions in schools so please comment if you know of any! So, I first just searched for the phrase and I found that Thomas Jefferson was the first to use it.
He used it in response to a letter. It sounded legit that the phrase was meant as we see it today. However, he was responding to a letter so I thought it necessary to read the original letter.
First of all, I was amazed at the respect of the writers to their new elected president. I wish we still talked like that today! After reading the original letter, I got a different flavor. I now saw it from a new context. The national government seems to be trying to mess with the states. Which Jefferson puts his foot down on. Next, it sounds like religions are starting to get suppressed. Their liberties are starting to diminish. It is a plea to the president to do something about it. His response? There should be a "separation of church and state," not a separation of state and church! His solution is that government should not suppress religious practices and that men can worship as they see fit.
After reading the original letter, I loved the passion that is still in the air for freedom and they are not giving any of it away; it cost too much the first time! I do think that the original intent of the phrase was on the opposite side. Government needed to stay out of the church. So as far as original intent, it was different.
What do you think?
Philip
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this is something that every American should do research on. My husband has done a lot of reading on the subject and the reality is that, just as you said, the original intent was to keep government out of the setting up a national religion. A mandated, or government chosen or controlled religion is what the colonist had fled from. Virtually all government documents and letters sent by our founding fathers made reference to the "Christian" God, whether in thanks, or a request for help. The founding fathers have been under attack, Jefferson in particular, in an effort to tear down the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation. The concept of separation of church and state has been altered as well to create the illusion that the church can never be a part of government, instead of its original intent of not having the government be the one to tell people how they should worship. The church was foundational in the construction of the American government, and that is indisputable if anyone wants to do the research. That fact alone should assist us as we look at what the founding fathers meant when they said "separation of church and state".
ReplyDeletePutting aside whether the original intent of the phrase "separation of church and state" I think the debate should center around what detriment does it cause in the classroom and to the students to have religious ideology mentioned in class. What harm is it doing students and children to learn about some aspects of Christianity, the largest religion in the world? Keep in mind that I am not a religious person, but consider myself spiritual, and I would have no problem with a teacher discussing religion in my kid's classroom. My children would have the ability to filter information and look at the world objectively. I see no problems with the core values of Christianity as they basically boil down to being kind and giving to our fellow man. What I do have a problem with is the ritualization that comes with religion becoming a part of classroom and school experiences.
ReplyDeleteAs to the letter and the original intent of the phrase, I am in agreement with you in that what I take from it is that government should stay out of religion. It is undeniable that we were a country founded on puritanical values and those values are seen throughout the constitution. To say that church and state are mutually exclusive terms seems a bit naive. I think we all have to accept that the Christian faith is deeply entrenched in our everyday lives whether we go to church or not and this includes being in our schools (even if we don't pray).
cheers,
ct
Religion is for the parents to take care of outside of school. Any religion does not have a place in school functions. If its not funded by the school than its fine. Even if every person in the room is the same religion that part of life has a place and its in the home and a place of worship.
ReplyDeleteI agree with teaching religion as it's cultural history and do so in 6th grade social studies curriculum here in California. The texts even quote the Bible as well as other religious scriptures.
ReplyDeleteAs far as religion only having it's place at home and houses of worship, I disagree. It'd be like separating people from their meaning and purpose while they're at an institution of learning. Religion and a belief someone has is a way we identify with ourselves. Even people who say they are not "religious" have a religion of not being. You catch my drift? Let me say it again a little differently. People who prescribe to not being religious, have that prescribed belief become their religion in the sense of practicing or non-practicing. How can we divide ourselves from our beliefs when we go to work? Do we learn anything about multi-cultural cohabitation through separation? Are we striving for a sterile environment free of all influences?
I think to separate church and state means to separate the influence of government on religion practice and choice. As teachers, government employees, we are not to attempt to influence our students one way or another correct? The separation has been so blown out of proportion that we have a reverse discrimination of those said Christians who may just be practicing what they believe. You're right, there isn't an influence on other religions to back off or stop in schools. They are multi-cultural events, not religious events. We are losing our religion, and the foundational principles our forefathers, corrupt or not, founded our nation upon.
It's why we have had so many debates about saying the Pledge of Allegiance with the inclusion of "...one nation, under God..."