Necessary Corrections

Marvin J. Perry

Kirkpatrick Series

Bellevue University

6 April 2014

The issue on religion and politics dates as far back to the Ancient Roman Empire, a time when religion had a lot of influence on the state authority and also according to Delaney (2005) to the enlightenment period when thinkers thought that humans ought to be independent of any authority both religious and government.

Karl Marx is often remembered for his famous quote "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" simply stated as ‘religion is the opium of the masses’ (.Berridge & Edward, 1980). According to Marx, religion was one of the tools used to oppress the people and it had to be gotten rid of if communism is to be achieved. Nicollo Machiavelli on the other hand stated the Prince ought to be ‘seemingly’ religious to control and maintain his rule. Since the beginning of time, through religion, people have been persuaded to change their beliefs and political views and this is partly why (in my view) the law between separation of church and state exists. The reality is, when it comes to religion and faith based institutions people are charged up by their emotions and belief in divine intervention, and for some this makes them vulnerable. More importantly, and the wonderful thing about being an American, there will still be the option to choose whether to be a part of a particular faith group or institution which should offset the need for the law. There are several churches that allow politicians to come in and speak to the congregation where they pick amount the speakers; whereas if they were allowed to elect someone from among them, they would have a more direct impact on their political agenda and representation. Comment by Windows User: Good, I like the historical aspects on this topic. Comment by Windows User: So religion shouldn’t support politics—condense can combine the second part of this paragraph to streamline argument/thesis/reasonsing. Or it should—because you potentially argue against this later.

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) came about when a law passed in New Jersey authorizing the reimbursement to parents who had to pay for the means of public transportation to and from public and private schools for their children. Arch R. Everson, executive vice president of the group called the “State Taxpayers Association”, was responsible for filing the claim. He represented the group who believed this form of reimbursement violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”. The argument of separation of church and state derived from the Catholic schools involved operated under the superintendency of a Catholic priest and, in addition to secular education, gave religious instruction in the Catholic Faith (Everson v. Board of Education). This was said to have violated the clause because the children were being sent to these religious schools to satisfy wishes of their parents, and not the greater good of the public's interest and the general education of all children in the township. "The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’" (Justice Hugo Black) Comment by Windows User: Good, synopsis. Comment by Windows User: Good. Comment by Windows User: This is the free exercise clause—they are related but need to be addressed separately. Comment by Windows User: You cannot use a quote this long for such a short paper. First, it’s formatted incorrectly—it needs to be separated from the text according to APA rules. The citation is also not correct. Paraphrase this. You can actually plagiarize by using too many quotes. Comment by Windows User: Apply other weeks’ materials—ex: was this an originialist/liv doc interp?

Another perspective of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township displayed that Everson’s suit is also a form of trying to establish a version of a class system while imposing a challenge to the parents whose goal is to seek equal justice and opportunity. In keeping with American Values of Legal Equality and Equal Opportunity despite Everson’s violation claims, the reimbursement was provided to parents of all schools and it was determined that by using tax raised funds to pay the bus fares of all school children, “public and parochial”, the entire public would be served. Comment by Windows User: cite Comment by Windows User: Are you using Everson’s viewpoint? Clarify and use supporting evidence as well as why that was not upheld in court.

This eliminated the attempt to focus only on the religious schools that was the general basis for the court case. In regards to Equal Opportunity, Everson challenged the rights of the townships citizens to be afforded the same right of reimbursement for their children who had chosen an alternate form of education. What happened to our unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Comment by Windows User: So you are arguing against this case? I’m not following. You need to have back up and don’t ask rhetorical questions.

Even after the Everson v. Board of Education decision, the question on whether Faith groups and institutions should be allowed to form political parties and if they should attempt to gain influence in the workings of government for their views and values by entering the realm of political discourse and attempting to elect their own politicians still remains a thorny issue in most state. The intent of separation of church and state has been obscured, highlighted and twisted throughout history. In a twist of events in 2008 the media tried to combine church and state when they went after then Presidential candidate Barack Obama and tried to attach him to Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Wright’s comments and cynicisms in an attempt to show that since the First Family attended Trinity United Church of Christ (where Wright pastored) they shared the same views. Ultimately, the President exercised his freedom of choice and removed their membership.

This paper seeks to elaborate how important it is for religious institutions to take an active role in politics. Just as Washington stated, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports (Novak, 2006).” All forms of religion have moral values, ethics and practices that are meant to unite different people by virtue of being human. As a whole, generally speaking, it’s almost guaranteed there will always potentially be democrats, republicans, and independents, who work together, live in the same neighborhoods, shop at the same stores, and yes fellowship at the same churches. This is something that lacks in state constitutions or laws of governance mainly because the constitution is written by the people, for the people of a particular state. By giving way to faith based institutions into the political realm, different faiths are brought together and with their views and opinions, the political sphere is enriched with diversity that gives consideration to all its people hence reducing the chances of marginalization which has in most instances been reported as a cause for radicalization as Berman (2009) suggests that common dress and social constraints among radicals is a component of the radicalization process. A good example is the Jihadist wars and clashes being experienced in parts of the world and Africa is recently under the threat of the same in countries such as Somali, Nigeria and in Kenya where by killings of Muslim clerics are now being viewed especially by the Muslims as a religious war something that can be solved by giving religious groups an opportunity in governance and politics.

The government, just as John Locke puts it, should protect the natural rights of its people. In so far as he is concerned, two of man’s natural rights are, freedom and equality (Marshall, 1994). Therefore, people whether from religious institutions or not should have the equal right and freedom to take part in political, social and economic spheres. Moreover, man being a social animal cannot be separated from any of the three social, political and economic spheres for as long as they live in a society even if faith is an individual choice. They hence should be given an opportunity to put forward their views if peace and justice are to prevail. Comment by Windows User: What? Comment by Windows User: CIte

Formation of political parties and the adoption of multi-party in several state governments have been viewed as one way of assuring democracy. A political party normally stands as a reflection of its member’s philosophies, ideologies and objectives. Different Faiths at the same time have different philosophies and ideologies, and if indeed multi-party is to be a reality, different faiths should also be given a chance to propagate their philosophies and ideologies through formation of political parties which will in turn give all members of different faiths an opportunity for full representation. With such an opportunity, almost all views and values of the people can be represented in decision making. Comment by Windows User: How? Cite.

A good example is the burning issue of Homosexuality. While a section of people in a state may not mind the existence of homosexuals not necessarily because they are homosexuals, a small sect may strongly oppose the same claiming religious or faith reasons. It is such a moment that faith institutions and groups need to be brought forward so that together a conscience and accommodative decision can be made before serious ‘laws’ are made. If in such a case faith based political parties and non-faith based political parties are to be in existence, then such matters can be well addressed especially in parliamentary voting of bills to ensure that despite the outcome, the faith based political parties can also be used by the government to control its congregation in case of a disagreements on the outcome of such bills hence maintaining peace. Comment by Windows User: Cite.

Tolerance especially religious tolerance has become an important element of good governance in very many states especially those advocating for democracy (Lars, 3013). The question however is, “how far does religious tolerance go?” Most populace literary take it to be as only the right to observe any form of religion, in a way that when a religious leader attempts to run for a political seat, a large number of them condemn such leaders with political aspirations, claiming that they are supposed to only give advice to political leaders and not be politicians by themselves. But by practice, if religious tolerance is to reach its full realization, faith groups, institutions and individuals should also be given the liberty and tolerated in active day to day political activities. Comment by Windows User: Again, not clear if you’re arguing for or against church and state mixed.

In a nut shell, despite the fact that there are a number of faiths in the world, they all have a similarity in the richness of their values, ethics, beliefs and morals. It is mainly this richness that anyone in support of the involvement of faith groups and institutions in politics derives their support from. Throughout history groups have assembled in churches under the guise as religious groups with political agendas Almost all religions call for love for one another, unity and caring for each other and a peaceful co-existence. These values, if practiced in politics and governance can shun away ill practices such as corruption, oppression, inequality among other bad governance practices that affect many countries today. This opinion is very unpopular in the United States and is also unlawful by the constitution. However, It is for this reason that I think, embracing faith in the political sphere is very important and if it is true what most people from different faiths say and try to believe is that “Leadership comes from God”, then why won’t God or we humans who believe in this, be give an opportunity to our faith or religious leaders to lead us? The Constitution of the United States is a living document, its time to adjust with the times and adapt and or amend this law.

References

Berman, E. (2009). Radical, Religious, and Violent: The New Economics of Terrorism. MIT Press.

Berridge, V. & Edward G. (1980). Opium and the People. London: Allen Lane

Delaney, T. (2005). The march of unreason: science, democracy, and the new fundamentalism New York: Oxford University Press.

Lars, T. (2013). Tolerance: A Sensorial Orientation to Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Marshall, J. (1994). John Locke: resistance, religion and responsibility, Cambridge: Cambridge university publication

Novak ,M (2006) Faith and the American Founding: Illustrating Religions Influence. Heritage Foundation publication.

O’Toole, R. (1984). Religion: Classic Sociological Approaches. Toronto: McGraw Hill

Everson v. Board of Education Retrieved from