Freedom of religion is a favored value in the American constitutional system. It is the first guarantee of the First Amendment. The first Amendment was enacted against the background of an established church in Great Britain during the colonial period and the official persecution of religious dissenters in Great Britain and colonial America. This amendment provides double protection to freedom of religion with two clauses. These two clauses, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, concern the relationship between government and religion.
All American politics are based off of the American Constitution. Or at least, they should be. This document is our sole set of rules, along with innate common sense. We shouldn’t have to bring religion into the argument to justify decisions that are bound to affect Christians as well as non-Christians. But, alas, people still play the Christianity card.
This action led to the founding the colony of Rhode Island as a safe place for religious dissidents. The Puritan clergy, which dominated the political structure, tried to enforce obedience and opposed any separation of church and state, as shown with Nathaniel Ward’s argument against government tolerance of religions diversity (Doc G). The
The Pledge of Allegiance was not written to coerce citizens of the United States. Its purpose was to create a statement of patriotism. Through its words, it states each American citizen’s respect for the republican form of government our Founders instilled, and loyalty to America, a country that is “indivisible.” While the separation of church and state is a key institute in maintaining a fair democratic government, certain traditions such as the Pledge of Allegiance, should be allowed in a society founded on the belief in monotheism. The Pledge was not written to defy the Constitution; rather, it was a statement of secular belief in our nation. Its author had no intention of violating the First Amendment.
Despite these 'similarities' between the two documents, the statements reach separate conclusions as to how the United States should continue to protect liberty. While both statements appear to uphold the Declaration, it is the Sharon Statement, and not the Port Huron Statement, which supports the Founder's intentions for the United States' government. The Port Huron Statement deviates from the original documents and proposes an expansion of the government in order to protect individual freedom; it suggest publicizing private affairs to protect liberty, a paradox it creates even as it names paradoxes in the United States. The Sharon Statement upholds the integrity of the Declaration and the Founders by adhering to the Constitution and not stepping past the bounds of government it lays out in its structure. The Port Huron Statement, if applied to United States policies, would destroy the liberty carefully established by the Founders, laid out in the Constitution, and defended throughout American history.
For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here (Thinking).” Here, Patrick Henry went against the very first Amendment to the Constitution, which asserts, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…(Bill of Rights)” In saying that the United States was indeed founded on the religious practices and morals of Christian life, Henry stood for everything that all the Founding Fathers believed as a whole. Several people would agree with him, saying that the only reason religious freedom is allowed is because those who originally governed the U.S. were good Christian men, and therefore welcomed with open arms any of those who fled to America in pursuit of liberty of religious persecution
This essay, which gave sound arguments to maintain the separation of church and state proved to be a good weapon against Patrick Henry’s persuasive oration and prevented any advances from being made concerning the union of church and
George Washington, for example, is not known to have taken communion, and one bishop who knew him was confident he was not a believer. Jefferson's scissored-down New Testament is well known. In the realm of what Meacham calls "public religion" the founding fathers thus assiduously avoided any sectarian bias. They strongly protected the right of every citizen to freely exercise "private faith," or no faith at all, as each individual conscience saw fit. Such was the paradox between political liberty and religious faith: "Many, if not most, believed; but none
He opens his speech by acknowledging the role of religious groups in the building of the American society. This is an issue that had no coverage in Johnson’s address. While Reagan concentrates on religious beliefs as the instigators of social growth and development, Johnson preferred that use of education and riches as the means to achieve the same goal. This contrast is evident in the way these two presidents gave their opening speeches. The other big contrast between these two speeches is Reagan’s reiteration the freedom and liberty are things that can only be enjoyed with the full blessings of God (Rodgers, 2011, p164).
Although religious values and morals don’t guide and rule countries anymore it is not to be said that they haven’t given countries a foundation for their laws and core values. An appropriate example of this is the United States of America many of their laws are based on the Ten Commandments of the bible, thou shall not kill thou shall be nice to your neighbor, though shall treat others the way you want to be treated and thou shall not steal. These are important examples of legislation and social conduct in American society. America is also a good example of religion still being used in core values and practices. One is the pledge of allegiance which says “under god” this shows America’s devotion to god.