Response to "The Separation of Church and State:"

In “The Separation of Church and State” by Stephen L. Carter, the issue of protecting religion from the state vs. protecting the state from religion is discussed. In this discussion, the only side of this argument that is represented by the First Amendment is the fact that religion is protected by the state not the other way around. Since the First Amendment was written congressmen, judges, and many other types of governmental men have said they are looking out for the best interest of religion, but as history shows their intentions are only that, just “actions meaning to be done.” In Carter’s argument he quotes Thomas Jefferson in saying that “the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights…” (Carter 103) are the rights that were designed to secure religious liberty. But I ask where has Jefferson’s way of thinking gone?

It is obvious that congress and the government as a whole have started to leer away from protecting religion from the state, and switched to protecting the state from religion. Carter states the best known case of this is the example in which the government denied the schools the right to have organized prayer in public schools (Carter 105). I believe that the government is neither abiding by nor breaking the First Amendment, they are just trying to casually ignore it. By not passing laws over the citizen’s right to practice what every religion they so choose they are abiding by the First Amendment. It is when they rule that schools and treatment centers cannot be funded by the government for the sole reason they may use a few prayers is when the government is not necessarily breaking the First Amendment, but just trying to get by it, by saying, in my opinion, “No we will not fund your programs, but we support your ideas and will let you stay as an organization!"

Therefore I believe Carter is trying to expose to the nation that our rights may not be taken away, but they are being compromised. It is plain to see that congress has changed its views on who to protect. I personally think that prayer in school would not harm anything or anyone. As well as prayer in rehabilitation centers would not harm anyone; it would only make them believe in themselves and a “higher power” even more, therefore giving them hope in breaking their addiction. Believing in and praying to a higher power is not going to change peoples’ opinions about the government and make them lean away from it and support only their God, no… all prayer does is give people the strength and belief that they are going to make it through any tough time they may encounter. So if religion is not harming the state, why does congress feel it necessary to protect the state from it?

Works cited

Carter, Stephen L."The Separation of Church and State." From "The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law

and Politics Trivialize Religous Devotion." A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed.

Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: BEdford/St. Martin's, 2006. pp99-111.