Amanda Myers

PEAR Paper

Brandon Alva – English 2010

April 16, 2018

Church & State: Good or Bad?

A year and a half ago I went to a political caucus in my local region for the first time.

Upon standing in line to vote for who I would think would be a better candidate to represent the

democratic party, I observed several people. Although I was attending a democratic caucus I

could still see influences of religion. I observed the people who attended were from the low to

middle working class. The majority of what the people were talking about was the values that

were important to their community. There is one story that stood out to me the most. It was a

middle-aged man and a middle, but youthful looking, aged women. They were talking about who

they thought would win to be the parties nominee. While over hearing their conversation, I

noticed that they were discussing the candidate’s religious stance. This was a first. Never before

had I heard someone talk about religion during politics. Of course, I learned about the influence

religion had on colonial America and its development into the nation it is now. But I never put

two and two together to think of the involvement it has in today’s society and in politics. As a

young adult getting introduced into the world of politics, I see a fair number of politicians using

their religion to persuade people into voting for them. I also see people voting for politicians due

to their religious beliefs being the same and not due to the issues the politicians see as important

to address.

1
 The United States of America is a country based on immigration and a diverse

population. We, as citizens of the U.S., assume that we have “free exercise of religion” which is

supposed to be proven in the Constitution’s First Amendment. “… guarantees freedoms

concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from

both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious

practices…” The First Amendment is to protect the citizens freedoms and ways of expressing

concerns. While it also prohibits the government from obstructing the freedom to exercise

religion or speech. (Staff, LII) With this in mind the involvement of religion in our government

should be kept to a minimum and decisions should be made with the intent of the people who the

politicians represent.

While conducting some research I wondered how people would react given a choice

between two political campaign advertisements. So, I decided to put it to the test. I decided to

ask my Facebook friends in the choice between two candidates, who they would pick. One being

a campaign ad for a politician who doesn’t have their religion be one of their main fronts for

their campaign. The second being a campaign ad for a politician who is known for their religious

affiliations. I produced, what I thought were the best choices, an ad for Bernie Sanders and an ad

for Mitt Romney. Bernie Sanders being the politician who doesn’t have their religion be their

front. Mitt Romney being known for having his religious affiliations. I understand they were not

in the same political race, but they fulfilled the requirements I was looking for. I posted a status

on my Facebook page asking each person to watch the first 30 seconds of the ad and message me

with who they picked. Before posting the status, I made a predication that more people would

pick Bernie Sanders and a few would pick Mitt Romney. However, the results were everyone

picked the Bernie Sanders campaign ad. I believe this is because most of the people that

2
commented were my close friends and family who share common morals as I do. I still believe

this was useful because it showed how many people were opposed the Mitt Romney ad.

In today’s society we have religion weaved into our everyday aspects whether we can

identify it or not. For example, when we have our children recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the

start of class in the morning every day. In the Pledge of Allegiance, it states “…one nation under

God…” (“The Pledge of Allegiance”) While this has minimal effects on those whose religion it

complies with, it creates a strain on others who practice religions that it would not comply with.

In schools we have special waivers that allow students, of certain religions, to not participate in

the recitation of the Pledge or National Anthem because they interfere with their faith. This in

turn is singling out the students this would apply too. Which results in the questioning of a nation

that is based on immigration and that is working to include people of other faiths. Would it be

better to take out the “…under God…” in the pledge to accommodate and include every citizen?

Upon reading an editorial “Keep Church, State Separate” it sparked the question of the freedom

to practice religion in schools. The editorial talks about a Christian assistant coach to a high

school football team by the name of Joe Kennedy. Kennedy believes there is a “war on

Christianity” due to getting let go from his position for expressing his religious faith in school

attire considering there were students and parents around. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

decided “expressions of religious faith are allowed on school grounds if they originate from

students rather than adults in a position of authority.” (Editorial: Keep Church, State Separate) I

believe if the expressions of faith be allowed to come at the will of the students then we should

edit the Pledge and National Anthem to accommodate all students of all religious backgrounds.

In the article “Is It Time for Public Schools to Put Religion Back in the Classroom? Yes:

Religion Is Too Important to Ignore” author Roger L. Beckett explores why religion should be

3
kept as a topic in American classroom. Beckett uses the view point of religion being what the

U.S. is based upon. He explains how many people came to the Americas in search of a place

where they could practice their faiths freely. Beckett believes in order to teach American history

correctly and to understand the decisions made, we need accept the role of religion in history and

to have our schools embrace it. By embracing the role religion played in history Beckett believes

it will help people understand where our country started and how we got to where we are today.

After reading this article, in my college campus library, I had a mix of emotions. I was thinking

how can we incorporate everyone so they can feel comfortable and still keep the teaching of

American history true? While thinking this I looked around at the people who were in the library

doing the same thing as me, studying and doing homework. I noticed the people were

remarkably diverse. But this made me realize history is history and we shouldn’t change religion

in history due to it not complying with peoples’ beliefs.

I read a journal article with the title, “Public Opinion on Church-State Issues in a

Changing Environment” by authors Clyde Wilcox and Rachel Goldberg. This article is about the

religious diversity and how Congress has had to handle issues of a non-Christian population that

sees the influence of religion in the government as a threat. I noticed the word diversity is used

throughout the majority of the article. This is key to the ever-changing environment we live in.

One question that is asked in the article is, “How might growing religious diversity affect the

substance of church-state attitudes?” More specifically Wilcox and Goldberg are talking about

the growing non-Christian population. (Wilcox 371) Looking at the statistics the authors

provided from a 1993 experiment, it seems that the United States population are diversifying

more and more. What can we expect to see today? We have a large number of immigrants and

different groups of people that have established life in the U.S. This article influenced my views

4
in the way that even 20 years ago the U.S. had been studying religious diversity and the public

opinion on church-state views. One thing that was brought to my attention in one of the

experiments is that a majority of the Christian population suggested that immigrants convert to

Christianity if they are to come to the U.S. To me this is something that is wrong with the U.S.

Yes, the U.S. nation was founded on Christianity. However, the U.S. is based on immigration

and the constant immigration of new peoples which results in change. We should allow the flow

of new waves of immigration to establish a new way of handling change in the country.

Especially religion and religion in the government.

My original thoughts on how my ideas and thoughts would be throughout my research

was that I would stay pretty consistent with the separation of church and state. I didn’t intend to

take a long stroll through religious influences in school. But it seems that’s where I took interest

the most. I went in with the intent that religion should not be taught in schools. However, while

doing research I realized that since our country is based on religion we should be able to teach

history correctly in a way where we are describing the past. I believe that since the U.S.’s society

is changing and becoming more diverse in a multitude of ways that we should think to change

how we perceive and influence religion in society.

5
 Bibliography

Broyde, Michael. "Religious Arbitration as a Secular Value.." Washington Post - Blogs, 29 Jun,

2017, SIRS Issues Researcher,https://sks.sirs.com.

"Editorial: Keep Church, State Separate." Columbian, 27 Aug, 2017, SIRS Issues

Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com.

Gaddy, C. Welten. “Religious Freedom and Church-State Separation.” Human Rights, vol. 35,

no. 4, 2008, pp. 12–13. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41223352.

Gordon, Sarah Barringer. “Review Essay: Where the Action Is—Law, Religion, and the

Scholarly Divide.” Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation, vol. 18,

no. 2, 2008, pp. 249–271. JSTOR, JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rac.2008.18.2.249.

Lynn, Barry W. "Supreme Court Imposes Church Tax." USA Today (Online), 26 Jun, 2017,

SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com.

MCCAULIFF, CATHERINE M.A. “Religion and the Secular State.” The American Journal of

Comparative Law, vol. 58, 2010, pp. 31–49. JSTOR, JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/20744531.

PERKINS, ANNA KASAFI. “‘Distinct but Inseparable’: Church and State in the Writings of

Michael Manley.” Caribbean Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 3, 2010, pp. 1–11. JSTOR, JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/23050671.

“The Pledge of Allegiance.” Ushistory.org, Independence Hall Association,

www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm.

6
Staff, LII. “First Amendment.” LII / Legal Information Institute, 10 Oct. 2017,

www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment.

Wilcox, Clyde, and Rachel Goldberg. “Public Opinion on Church-State Issues in a Changing

Environment.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 41, no. 2, 2002, pp. 369

376. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1388015.