Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Stephen L. Carter- The Separation of Church and State

What is the Establishment Clause?

The Establishment Clause is the beginning of the first Amendment where the issue is religion. The Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Carter debates each point of the state and religion as he discusses a number of examples. Carter asserts “the principle task of the church and state is to secure religious liberty” (Carter 104). I think that Carter tends to lean heavier towards Christianity and the church. He wants the state and the church to secure religious freedom. “For most of American History, the Principal purpose of the Establishment Clause has been understood as the protection of the religious world against the secular government” (Carter 104). Just as Carter stated in the beginning paragraph of the reading, the Establishment was originated to protect religion from state, not state from religion. This Clause sets a boundary on how involved state is with religion. The state can not fund any organized religion, yet free prayer is not allowed in the beginning of classrooms, because not all people derive from the same religion. “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” (Carter 105). The Establishment Clause has put a metaphorical wall between church and state, leaving no room support in the church, because the Clause supports religious liberty. Carter writes “The embarrassing truth is that the Establishment Clause has no theory; that is the Supreme Court has not really offered any guidance on how to tell when the clause is violated.” (Carter 106). There are different cases and arguments that would determine your case.


Works Cited

Carter, Stephen L. "The Separation of Church and State." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp99-112.

No comments: