The Establishment clause Blog # 4

The establishment clause was meant to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion. For some time the establishment clause had been thought as the protection of religion against the secular government. The fact of the matter is that the establishment cause has no theory, meaning that the Supreme Court has not offered any direction in telling whether the clause has been violated or not. In order to pass the establishment Clause, justice wrote that the statute in question must meet three criteria: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, it’s principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive entanglement with religion (Carter 106). ’” The establishment clause was written trying to build around the political process, a wall almost impossible to take seriously. Pro choice scholars have argued that pro-life legislation violates the establishment clause because of the religious motivation of many supporters. The establishment clause by its terms doesn’t allow the imposition of religious belief by the state, not statements of religious belief in the course of public dialogue. Religious freedom is something that our nation prides itself on, the establishment clause might well end up not antiestablishment but antireligion. Religious views are extremely important and should not be argued against and people should not have to feel that their religious views are incorrect or wrong. I feel that religion and the state should be separate they should not conflict because they are to totally different parts of our lives.

Carter. “The Separation of the State.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2006. pp 99-110.