Lillian Reilly
11/24/2012
Research Paper
The Separation of Church and State in the United States of America.
The United States of America does not have adequate separation of church and state, and this lack of separation promotes inequalities in the rights of citizens in the country. In our constitution each person is guaranteed the right to the pursuit of happiness. The lack of separation of church and state is debilitating the ability of certain people and groups to pursue what makes them happy. In the current society women can be denied health care by employers if the employer feels will it violates their religion. This injustice has come to pass because, in government, the availability of birth control is viewed as a religious issue when, in actuality, it is a women’s issue. Same-sex couples cannot enter into marriage largely due to campaigning by religious entities and religious stigma surrounding homosexual relationships, resulting from a scriptural statement saying that homosexual activities are wrong. Students in public schools can feel excluded or prejudiced against because they do not subscribe to the same religion, belief system, or have the same sexual orientation as the majority of the student body. Students who feel like they do not belong or that they are being bullied have historically not done as well in school as other children, and are more than twice as likely to take their own lives as children not being bullied.
Working women can be denied birth-control by their employers if their employers feel that it violates their religious preferences. Under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, employers either have to offer their employees health insurance or they must pay a penalty. Per this health care system employers can deny contraceptive coverage under the explanation that birth control violates their religious beliefs. In actuality this restriction of their healthcare is an imposition of religious beliefs on the women being insufficiently covered. The supposed justification of the denial of contraceptive coverage is that it is an issue of religious freedom, when in reality it is a womens rights issue. Contraceptive coverage is an issue of women’s health and not an issue of religious right. A persons ability to receive birth control should not be affected by their own or anyone else’s religion. Officially, the catholic church does not support the use of contraceptives. Regardless of this 98% of catholic women over 30 have used some form of contraceptive in the past (nytimes.com/top/news/health). 52% of catholic respondents said that religious institutions should have to offer contraceptive coverage to their employees (nytimes.com/top/news/health). The catholic church has refused to support this new legislature and many catholics and members of other religious groups have rallied against it, believing that their religious rights are being taken away. “Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy product that violates their conscious” (Archbishop Dolan, http://cnsnews.com/video/national/cardinal-designate-dolan-vows-fight-obamacare-rule-we-cant-afford-strike-out-one). Archbishop Dolan believes that by forcing employers to offer contraceptive coverage to their employees the government is violating a person’s religious religious rights when in actuality they are not forcing the employers to buy birth control, they are only giving the option for the employees to get it for themselves. If the use of birth control violates someone’s religious conscience they can refuse the benefit and therefore are not required to purchase it. When employers refuse their employees contraceptive coverage based on their own religious preferences they are then imposing their religious beliefs upon others.
Every woman has the right to determine whether she would like to have a child or not, and therefore every women has the right to contraception.The United Nations declared contraceptive a human right (Beadle, http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/14/1189161/un-contraception-human-right/?mobile=nc). Because it is a UN declared human right every women should have access to birth control, although many do not. Without contraceptive coverage a women on average would be forced to pay $150 a month for a contraceptive injection, making this opportunity unobtainable for some women.(Voss, womenshealthmag.com). Limitations placed on contraception and contraceptive coverage can often reflect on the health of the female populations. Offering contraception to women in impoverish nations can often improve the economy by limiting population growth and allow more women to join the work force and boost the economy (Beadle, http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/14/1189161/un-contraception-human-right/?mobile=nc). Although the United States is by no means an impoverished country, this statistic can be applied to areas of the country were many low-income families reside. The availability of birth control in these areas could assist in stimulating the economy, and allowing women in those areas a greater chance at success in their life. “Women who use contraception are generally healthier, better educated, more empowered in their households and communities and more economically productive. Women’s increased labor-force participation boosts nations’ economies” (UN representative, http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/14/1189161/un-contraception-human-right/?mobile=nc). The use and availability of birth control is not only beneficial to women individuality but society as a whole will benefit from the availability of contraceptives.
Religious organizations campaign against contraceptive care is the largest factor in the government decision that employers can choose whether to provide it or not, based on individual religious beliefs. When a similar bill to Obamacare was passed in Washington religious groups poured millions into the effort of fighting the bill.( Vanegeren, host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics). In the similar Washington bill there was no provision to allow religious employers the ability to deny their employees contraceptive coverage. Pro-life entities campaigned against the bill, claiming that their right to freedom of religion was being violated, when it is not. Anyone who feels that birth control violates their religion is not forced to purchase the product but is at least given the option, in tems of the washington bill as well as the national legislature, Obamacare. Matt Sande, Pro-Life Wisconsin’s director of legislation said that his organization does not oppose healthcare reform, but rather the “anti-life” provisions that go along with it. The group does not want government to force taxpayers to have to fund abortion and contraception( Vanegeren, host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics). Under Obamacare abortions, and abortion inducing drugs are not covered, only anti-contraceptives. Pro-life groups in more than 5 states have filed lawsuits against the Obama administration, on the grounds that people’s religious liberties were being diminished by forcing them to offer contraceptive coverage to their employees(Vanegeren, host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics). The money supplied by religious entities to fight the bill and push for pro-life legislature is a main reason that now under Obamacare women do not have to be offered covered contraception with their insurance. Discrimination against the coverage of drugs solely used by women, for reasons that contradict some religious teachings, is a prime example of how religion is not separate from the matters of law in the country. The accommodation to fit certain religious preferences is debilitating aspects of women’s health, and in some cases a person’s ability for a better life.
Children in public schools are often put at a disadvantage if they do not subscribe to the same faith as most their surrounding population, which makes them feel ostracized and can lead to bullying. Public schools in America are a government entity and therefore they must be secular. Because all public schools must be secular, no public school can push or support any particular religion. Even though the existence of this mandate, In 1978 the state of Kentucky mandated that all public school classrooms must show the 10 commandments (God and Government . Weiss). Cases such as this can inflict stress upon students who feel like they do not fit the mold that the school is looking for. Government provides private schools (90% of which are church based) with money for buses, books, and testing. This practice is wrong and violates the secularist system. By providing such schools with public money the government is supporting the entire religious entity (God and Government. Weiss).Public money supporting religious schools is also supporting the religious teachings of that school. Accommodationists argue that the government should aid private and/or religious schools because both the government and the schools need to work together to educate the children.
In schools today children get bullied, and while some may argue that it is just part of growing up, bullying is wrong and no one has the right to it. Bill SB 3393 in Tennessee, and a similar bill in Michigan, would have given people a license to bully if they were bullying based on their religious beliefs (Neely, Senator Jim Summerville Reintroduces OK to Bully Based on Religion). Giving anyone a right to bully is wrong, no matter what the reason. Public schools are tolerant of all religions so using a religion as an excuse for the torment of another student is wrong and should not be accepted. The consequences of bullying have to be considered also, as in some cases children can commit suicide due to bullying. For example, a student could be bullied for his sexuality relentlessly at school and although it’s horrible to think about, he could commit suicide. If the mentioned bill was passed, the bully may not be held accountable because of his or her religious beliefs. Jessica Ahlquist, a Rhode Island resident who fought in her school district to abolish her school’s prayer display, has become a target of bullying in her community. (http://secular.org/, Ahlquist’s Experience Highlights Need for Religion-Based Bullying Protections). Because Ahlquist stood for what she believed in she has been bullied by peers, members of her community, and her state representative who publically referred to her as, “an evil little thing” (http://secular.org/, Ahlquist’s Experience Highlights Need for Religion-Based Bullying Protections). Bullying based on religion can extend outside of the school, and the mentioned bill would have protected the bully, and not the victim because of the bully’s religious beliefs.
In publically funded entity’s today a person can still find numerous results of a lack of secularism, particularly in the schools that the nation’s children attend. In March 2004 Nashala Hearn was forced to remove her hijab because it violated the dress code, which the justice department believes to be unconstitutional. (Religious Discrimination in Schools: Discrepancies with Religion in Schools .http://sitemaker.umich.edu/hwaters/discrepancies_with_religion_in_schools). The sixth grader was suspended twice for wearing the religious headdress and was ultimately forced to choose between her public education and her religion. This blatant discrimination is an ideal example of the lack of secularism in america. A perfectly secular school would have allowed Nashala to wear her religious garment, as oppose to the bias they showed by forcing her to take it off. Any government funded entity should not have the ability to discriminate against anyone because of their own religion or others. According to the supreme court, a religious institution that receives government funding cannot decide not to hire someone based on their religion ( Ellement, http://www.boston.com). Sharon Wright, a teacher at Covenant Christian Academy, the school where her son also attended, claimed to have been fired after her son came out as gay. Her son was suspended from school until he ,”renounced his sin” and school officials allegedly said “your son is broken and it is your job to fix him.” The school later denied Sharon a contract renewal ( Hibbard, http://www.huffingtonpost.com). Because Sharon supported her son and refused to denounce him for being who he is, the school ended her employment there because of their religious beliefs. Making Sharon choose between her son and her job are actions that shouldn’t have happened if church was completely separate from state.
Minority group citizens, specifically homosexuals, are denied the same rights as heterosexual citizens. Same-sex couples in many parts of America are refused the right to marry, which is violating their right to the pursuit of happiness. Religious groups and religious precedent play a huge part in this discrimination because of their campaigning and stigma which surrounds the minority groups in many religions. Religious adoption agencies are permitted to discriminate against couples solely based on their sexual orientation. The rights of these minority groups are being grossly violated due to the lack of secularism in america.
Discrimination against minorities using religion as a cover is not a new principle in the USA, as all throughout the history of Americathere are blatant examples of the discrimination, especially during the equal rights movement.In the past, Arkansas had an anti-sodomy law specifically prohibiting same-sex actions that was upheld and strongly enforced for many years before it was struck down by the supreme court for violating privacy (Waltzer, gay rights on trial). Sodomy is a biblical word and the laws definition of sodomy came almost directly from the bible, a law based on the definition of sodomy contradicts the secularist system. (Waltzer, gay rights on trial). Before 1961 homosexual acts were illegal and those who partook in them could be severely punished. Police would target people leaving gay clubs and harass them, specifically for cross-dressing. (Waltzer, gay rights on trial). Targeting such a group is discrimination. During the equal rights movement religious people campaigned against the equal rights amendment, also known as the ERA, because it went against their religious beliefs. Mormons attacked the equal rights amendment. “we believe the ERA is a moral issue with many disturbing ratifications for women and the family” Mormon Church (Young, Equal Rights, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church.). The mormon church believed that by giving women equal standing as men you would break the “natural family” standard and it would hurt family morals, leading to an increase in things such as homosexuality (Young, Equal Rights, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church ). Religious groups, not only the mormons, have a lot of foothold in the communities of our country, when any group directly affiliated with a religion steps into legal matters, specifically to prevent someone from getting the same rights as themselves, not only is it wrong but it also contradicts the secularist system.
Proposition eight was an amendment to California’s constitution making same-sex marriage illegal after it had previously been legalized. The supreme court ruled that even with the Equal Rights Amendment same-sex couples could not get married. (Young, Equal Rights, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church )Mormons pushed for prop eight to be legalized in California, pouring millions of dollars into the cause to make same-sex marriage illegal (Young, Equal Rights, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church ). The overwhelming support of proposition eight from the mormon church absolutely defies the secularist system. Churches such as The Church of Latter Day Saints have no business putting extremely large sums of money into the promotion of a bill. Churches are exempt from paying taxes, but if they act in a way that they put money forth for a government bill they should lose their tax exemption because they are no longer behaving as a church, separate from the government, but rather as an organization that campaigns for a bill. Churches in the case of proposition eight campaigned for the law to be passed, and are in violation of the separation of church and state.
DOMA, the defense of marriage act, allows states to declare for themselves whether same-sex marriage should be legal within their boundaries or not. DOMA counteracts the full faith and credit clause by allowing states to not recognize same-sex marriage licenses if they choose not to. (Barooah, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/doma-unconstitutional-ruling_n_1560780.html>.) DOMA is unconstitutional because it restricts the rights of same-sex couples to certain areas of the country, violating the full faith and credit clause as well as diminishing the right to the couples pursuit of happiness. Earlier in 2012 President Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage, his support and statement have been deemed a “War on Traditional Marriage” by the Church of Latter Day Saints (Young, Neil J. Equal Rights, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church ). Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or DADT, was an act that allowed closeted homosexuals to join our armed services. At the time that it was legalized it was seen as progressive when it is in fact a conservative proposition, the act forced homosexuals who wanted to join the army to hide who they were. The act was repealed on september 20th, 2012 with much controversy (Bradley, Westboro Baptist Church: ‘God Hates Ohio State University). The extremist group the Westboro Baptist church, which is famous for their “god hates fags” campaign, viewed the repeal as America’s ultimate damnation (Bradley, Westboro Baptist Church: ‘God Hates Ohio State University). The “church” began the campaign proclaiming that “god hates dead soldiers,” and although most religious groups cannot be judged for this extremist group’s actions, they are an excellent example of how a religious group campaigns against a minority groups rights.
No country can have a perfect, clean separation of church and state because many people are guided in politics by their religious beliefs. The religious institutions in america have too much influence on the government. Women’s individual access to birth control should not be compromised by their employers religious beliefs. Every women should have equal and full access to contraceptives. School is a stressful time for most students, bullying and religious discrimination, or discrimination due to the bully’s religious beliefs, can make it so much harder and can affect the way a child does in school. A child that gets bullied does not have equal opportunity as a child that is bully-free. Same-sex marriage is a hot topic right now and will be for quite some time. Denying the same rights to same-sex couples as you grant to everyone else promotes an air of inequality throughout the nation. By denying homosexuals the same rights as everyone else the government is proclaiming that they are not equal to everyone else, and that is wrong. Religious institutions putting money directly towards issues of government is a gross violation of the separation of church and state. Fortunately, in America we are constantly moving towards the future, and the future is brighter. The separation of church and state is constantly growing and equality is always expanding making the US a better, brighter, more equal place every day.
Works Cited
“Contraception and Insurance Coverage (Religious Exemption Debate).” Health Care Reform
and Contraception. New York Times, 21 May 2012. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
“Cardinal-Designate Dolan Vows To Fight Obamacare Rule: ‘We Can’t Afford To Strike Out
On This One'” Cns News, n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
<http://cnsnews.com/video/national/cardinal-designate-dolan-vows-fight-obamacare-rule-
we-cant-afford-strike-out-one>.
Beadle, Amanda P. “United Nations Declares Access To Contraception A Universal Human
Rights.” ThinkProgress RSS. N.p., 14 Nov. 2012. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
<http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/14/1189161/un-contraception-human-right/?mo
bile=nc)>.
Voss, Gretchen. “BIRTH CONTROL RIGHTS.” Womenshealthmag.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 08
Dec. 2012. <http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/birth-control-rights>.
Vanegeren, Jessica. “Religious Groups Fighting Mandatory Contraception Coverage in Health
Care Law.” Madison.com. N.p., 05 July 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.
<http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/capitol-report/capitol-report-religio
us-groups-fighting-mandatory-contraception-coverage-in-health/article_b55a4fd2-c624-1
1e1-83e3-0019bb2963f4.html>.
Weiss, Anne. God and Government: The Separation of Church and State. N.p.: n.p., 1990.
Print.
Neely, Dee. “Senator Jim Summerville Reintroduces OK to Bully Based on
Religion.”Examiner.com. The Examiner, 27 Jan. 2012. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
<http://www.examiner.com/article/senator-jim-summerville-reintroduces-ok-to-bully-bas
ed-on-religion>.
“Ahlquist’s Experience Highlights Need for Religion-Based Bullying Protections.”Secular
Coalition for America. N.p., 25 Jan. 2012. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.
<http://secular.org/blogs/lauren-anderson-youngblood/ahlquist%E2%80%99s-experience-
highlights-need-religion-based-bullying-prote>.
“Religious Discrimination in Schools: Discrepancies with Religion in Schools.” Religious
Discrimination in Schools: Discrepancies with Religion in Schools. University of
Michigan, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012.
<http://sitemaker.umich.edu/hwaters/discrepancies_with_religion_in_schools>.
Ellement, John R. “Massachusetts High Court Bars Religious School Teacher from Bringing
Workplace Discrimination Claim.” Boston.com. The New York Times, 19 Sept. 2012.
Web. 12 Dec. 2012.
<http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/09/19/massachusetts-high-court-bars-religious-
school-teacher-from-bringing-workplace-discrimination-claim/tzunwZnC0qFbHxO8vvzz
FP/story.html>.
Hibbard, Laura. “Sharon Wright, Teacher, Claims School Suspended Son For Being Gay, Fired
Her For Supporting Him.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 June 2012.
Web. 9 Dec. 2012.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/sharon-wright-teacher-claims-school-suspe
nded-her-son-for-being-gay_n_1634811.html>.
Walzer, Lee. Gay Rights on Trial: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO,
2002. Print.
Young, Neil J. “Equal Rights, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church.” Campaign Stops Equal
Rights Gay Rights and the Mormon Church Comments. N.p., 13 June 2012. Web. 12
Dec. 2012.
Barooah, Jahnabi. “DOMA Unconstitutional Ruling: Liberal Religious Groups Hail Move,
Conservatives Condemn.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 01 June 2012.
Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/doma-unconstitutional-ruling_n_1560780.h
tml>.
Bradley, Thomas. “Westboro Baptist Church: ‘God Hates Ohio State University'” The Lantern.
The Lantern, 15 June 2012. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
![order now](https://nursinghomeworkhelps.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/order-now.jpg)