Separation of Church and State Essay -- Government

IntroductionSeparation of Church and state has been a subject seen by the sovereign Court over the past 150+ years. Our countries religious freedoms and how its interpreted have been debated by both sides with reasonable argument. The framers of our federal government had laid consume a series of guidelines for a free and prosperous society. One of the most controversial clauses in the First Amendment of our character where it states that no law will affirm a religion or prohibit the rights of the people to exercise their religious rights has been part of a national debate since the First Congress was in session. burn you blatantly ignore a religion and make sure they dont get any government funding for their schools because of their religious status? Is it original to ignore drug laws because it is a persons religious dogma to use them in their practice? In this essay I will confront through the Framers papers, early political debates and various Supreme Court c ases to show why establishment clause and free exercise clause were tell into the Constitution in order to building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State.Historical ContextTo understand what the Framers of the Constitution thought was an appropriate relationship between a government and a religious institution, we first should look at their own writings and speeches to understand what their belief on this issue had been. It is true that like most issues brought to the table at the Constitutional Convention, the issue of the religion in government had been a thoroughly argued topic among the Framers. There is no doubt that the battle to structure the separation issue ended when the Constitutional Convention shut its doors. ... ...eacon Press, 1951. McConnell, Michael M. The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free enjoyment of Religion.Harvard jurisprudence Review. 103.7 (1990) 1409-1517.Powell, Jefferson H. The Original Understanding of Original Intent . Harvard Law Review Vol. 98, No. 5 (Mar., 1985), pp. 885-948. Cambridge The Harvard Law Review Association. Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878) 98 U.S. 145Rossiter, Clinton. 1787 The lordly Convention. 1st ed. New York Macmillan, 1966. Print.Seixas, Moses, and George Washington. To Bigotry No Sanction. American Treasures of the Library of Congress. Library of Congress, 27 Jul 2010. Web. 14 Feb 2012. .Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)Sofaer, Abraham D. The Presidency, War, and Foreign Affairs Practice under the Framer. Law and Contemporary Problems. 40.2 (1976) 12-36.