Separation of Church and State
Develop a policy stating the degree in which the government should adhere to the principle of Separation of Church and State. Is there a role for the Federal government when a state or local government decides to teach "Intelligent Design" in public schools? Should the phrase "Under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance? Is there a need for a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in public schools? Should the government have a Christian chaplain leading prayers in Congress? Should the president hold prayer meetings in the White House? Should the Federal government recognize only Christian holidays as Federal holidays?
LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE WERE RECEIVED ON TIME. RADICAL and ULTRA-CON ARE LATE.
Radical: Ashwin
The separation of church and state should be the least debated topic of this convention. Not only is it outlined in the First Amendment that individuals should have the freedom of religion, but based on the fundamental nascence of our nation was to escape religious persecution. Even the most right wing groups can agree that tradition has set a precedent of relative governmental secularism as a guiding principle for our nation. The following are categorical reasons for why church and state should be separated, to be applied to each of the individual issues. The theory of “state” involves strictly political matters, which religious beliefs have little relevance to, except as a method of influencing policy. Such policy is almost always prejudiced against the religious minority. The people will benefit from a complete separation because minorities will not suffer and everyone will be on equal political standing, the primary goal of our democracy. The church has a history of discriminating those who stand in the way of its goals. Accordingly, the church usually doesn’t keep the whole country in its best interests, but only a very exclusive few who control the church. When applied to our democracy, the majority religion will always prevail, at which point, our democracy is completely undermined. Even if the idea of “integration of church and state” were to magically include every religion, all spiritual ideologies are dogmatic and therefore create roots for laws that cannot change. The will of God can never be questioned. With spiritual integration, the government could then turn into a higher being itself, ultimately defeating the very tenets of democracy that we strive to maximize. Moreover, even conceiving of a spiritual government is a step back to medieval times or a step closer to various nations that we have conflicts with. We currently have a constitution that represents the values of the people which have been passed into government fairly, using the consent of voted representatives from all states who agree. If the church controls our government, all these checks and balances go down the drain because our policies will then be influenced by the values of the church, which wouldn’t have been properly voted into government and clearly do not represent everyone’s interests. The bottom line is that religious assimilation is the antithesis to a democracy, and should be avoided at all costs. Otherwise, the very democratic values that we cherish will be annihilated.
Liberal: Sid
Our nation was built upon a foundation of freedom and equality. When our founding fathers met to frame that principle doctrine of American democracy, the Constitution, James Madison gave a speech declaring that, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." The point of this speech was later adapted into a section of the First Amendment. Clearly, our founding fathers wished to separate church from state. Although religion may have been important to them, they intended to forever keep it away from governmental processes to best ensure the preservation of freedom. Our country was not founded upon Christianity, and to this day we remain a secular, non-Christian nation.
The Liberal platform supports the continuation of this separation between church and state. It is constitutionally unlawful for the federal government to either sanction or advocate religion in the lives of citizens, and keeping religion away from government-funded programs (public education, for instance) goes along with this territory. Phrases such as "in God we trust" and "under God," which were inserted crudely onto our money and into our pledge during the Red Scare, are pathetic attempts to encourage religious worship and bridge the gap between religion and politics.
If government is allowed to use religion as a justification for the establishment of law, our system of determining human justice will be sadly replaced with Christian biases. Advocating the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is one such example of government being influenced by fundamentalist Christian lobbyists. While the debate between evolution and intelligent design is alive and well among average citizens, evolution is universally accepted among scientists and scholars. When we allow evolution and intelligent design to be debated on a level platform of possibility, we stop teaching science and replace it with faith.
This is not to say that religion is a bane upon society. Rather, it is an integral part of who many of us are. The Liberal platform fully supports a person’s right to worship as he chooses; this is one of the crucial principles of freedom. If government specifically advocates religion, however, it has contradicted the intention of providing a haven for all systems of belief. Religion should not intrude on any citizen’s privacy, education, or personal beliefs. Thus, liberals do not support allowing special time for prayer in public school. Students should be free to pray on their own time or with other students outside of school hours, but religion should not interfere with education.
Faith is and always has been a major part of many Americans’ lives. But it is not part of every American’s life, and government should equally respect the rights and beliefs of all citizens. Faith is a private concern, government a public matter. If liberty, justice, and equality are to survive, separation of church and state must exist.
Conservative: Viraj
The State should not discriminate against anyone based on their faith; in other words, faith-based initiatives are just as good as secular ones. To discount a public service simply because of its religious affiliations is antithetical to the ideals of equal opportunity that our nation was founded upon. Schools and soup kitchens alike should be awarded subsidies based off of merit, not religious affiliation.
Church and state can be mixed as long as there are secular substitutes to policies based in religion. We should advocate the teaching of intelligent design as a supplement to other theories, such as evolution, and allow students to formulate their own decisions. The plethora of evidence in favor of both theories means that arbitrarily discarding one provides American youth with a biased and incomplete perspective.
Optional organized in-school prayer sessions are an essential aspect of religious freedom, not just for Christians but for those of all faiths. For instance, the Islamic faith requires that followers perform a ritual prayer five times a day while facing Mecca. By presenting these opportunities to interested students we can foster the moral growth of the next generation.
The phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance is not so much a religious statement as a reflection of the faith-based history of our nation. The founding fathers were mostly deists, not Christians, and frequently referred to God in a conceptual, not a Biblical sense. The optional nature of the pledge further makes this a non-issue; a student who takes offense can simply opt not to recite that phrase.
Finally, the insistence that elected officials separate their religious beliefs from their political ones is fundamentally illogical. A person’s political leanings are entirely a function of their moral value systems, and for those individuals who feel strongly about their faith those moral values often have religious roots. By forcing politicians to divorce themselves of their religion when in the political arena, we actively violate their first amendment rights. When politicians make decisions that contradict their ethics, the resulting policies benefit no one and lack meaning.
Ultra-Con: Petie
The first amendment clearly states that the Federal government will not endorse any religion; however, our country has been founded and guided by Christian traditions, and Peter Scobel, the ultraconservative candidate, promises to uphold and maintain these traditions. To deny or defy these Christian traditions is to be anti-American.
Similarly, the phrase “Under God” should not be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. According to the First Amendment Center and the American Journalism Review conducted a nationwide public opinion poll. They found that 68% of adults believe that teachers who include "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were not violating the principle of separation of church and state. 73% of respondents also said that including the "under God" phrase is "primarily a statement related to the American political tradition." We encourage the teaching of intelligent design.
The first amendment gives all American citizens the freedom to practice any religion. To prohibit prayer in public schools would be a direct violation of the first amendment. The Federal government is limited by its Constitutional boundaries and will not intervene in the education system. In addition, the President should be allowed to hold prayer meetings in White House. Since the Federal government already recognizes Christian holidays such as Christmas; denying them would destroy a part of American tradition.