Should Church And State Be Separate

Abstract

There has been much debate on whether or not the United States has been doing the right thing by keeping church and state as separate entities rather than keeping them entwined as had been the standard for centuries prior to the country's founding. The list of influences this law could affect is substantial, ranging from the workplace to school functions. Even the way people decorate their offices and houses has come into question from time to time. However, remarkably, every person has a different style of argument and a different way of looking at the available facts. I intend to compare two very different argument styles on both sides of this issue, and how two capable writers use completely different methods of research, facts, and interpretations to propose their opinions.

Should Church and State be Separate?

Alan Wolfe (2002) speaks about many of the implied hypocrisies during the centuries-long debate over separation of church and state. While most people are brought up to question hypocrisy, Wolfe claims that some level of it is necessary to allow for compassion from the audience. "Surely we should want our anti-clericalists to have a touch of belief about them, especially when compared to the truly cynical." Wolfe (¶ 14, 2002).

In his book, Separation of Church and State, Philip Hamburger called many of the politicians "...opportunistic" however; their type of behavior is often seen throughout our society today. In his article, "Church and State Should be Separate," Wolfe (2002) uses lawyers as an example;

The history of American jurisprudence is filled with examples of lawyers seeking to build the strongest possible cases for their clients or causes, dropping one argument and employing another if it promises a greater chance of success, even if it seems to contradict the first. (¶ 13).

Throughout his argument, Wolfe also cites the court case, "Everson vs. Board of Education," which placed separation of church and state into constitutional law in 1947. Prior to this case, the set of rules and ethics, God's or Man's, that should guide us, the citizens, had been debated but never determined.

On the other side of the spectrum stands Steve Bonta. Bonta contends that separation of church and state is a historical mistake waiting to happen. He uses examples from the French Revolution, in which they attempted the same ideal--giving the power to the people--and it failed them miserably. Bonta uses quotes from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to support his claim that we were each given "inalienable rights" from God, not from humanity, and therefore God should rule over the nation.

Alan Wolfe makes his opinion clear that church and state were separated in 1947 by ruling of the Supreme Court in the Everson trial, and it should remain that way to protect the rights of all citizens. His belief is that integrating the two powers would ultimately lead to further corruption of the government. He also states that keeping church and state together would lead to favoritism of one religion over another, undermining the very ideals of "Freedom of Religion." Steve Bonta claims that the modern interpretation of documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, has been perverted from the actual meanings and intentions of our founders. His belief is that the first amendment, on Congress "...making no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," was not meant to keep a wall between Church and state (¶ 12), but rather to protect the Church from being separated. Bonta believes that while the United States does not have an official, national religion (such as Episcopalian in England), it was founded on Christian values and morals, which have been entwined throughout our earliest documents and laws, making it impossible and impractical to separate.

While Alan Wolfe makes a strong case by using court cases and discussing the years of debates over this issue, his largest mistake was using Philip Hamburger's book. He uses quotes throughout his text, exemplifying why church and state do not have to be together, but he does not discuss why they should actually be separated. Philip Hamburger does not state in his book that they should be separated, and Wolfe even points that out in his essay, along with the fact that Hamburger does not offer any other alternatives and ideas regarding separation. Rather than building his argument that the two entities be separated, Hamburger merely bashed the idea that they be together. While this type of argument does not make a very credible argument that church and state be separated, it does make a very strong case that church and state should not be integrated into one power.

Steve Bonta made many more mistakes in his argument than Wolfe did, however. Bonta's essay was strongly opinionated, and very well articulated, but it lacked facts. His

...