The separation of church and state

  The separation of church and state is a heavy foundation of our country. Now this principle is more important than ever with some states using religious freedom as an excuse to stop others from performing certain actions. 

  Last year, Roe V. Wade was overturned. However, its enactment  was very important to safeguarding the autonomy of women as it granted them the federal right to get an abortion.

  The idea presented by some conservatives was the idea abortions go against some of the ideas in their religion, infringing on their religious freedoms. The Supreme Court Justices ruled that a child was born at the moment of conception and this eventually led to the overturning of Roe V. Wade. This idea conflicted with other religions and people have begun to file suits based on the idea that this misinterprets or denies the validity of what their religion defines as birth. 

  Religion doesn’t really do much in the way of regulating state business. That is the exact reason that it stays separate from the government.

  Religion can be used in great ways to help people, but there are lots of ways to see these things. Some see religion as some form of a guide for day-to-day life. Teaching you how to live. But at the same time, they have lots of restrictions or guidelines. Some use the idea of afterlives. In what is probably the most well-known idea of an afterlife is heaven, and hell. 

  The idea of an afterlife is nice, a place where you can live with your loved ones once you all pass on. But does the idea of hell make people do good things out of fear? 

  Getting back on track, can a church be used in conjunction with the state? The short answer is no. The Church has no place in politics due to the differing views of different religions throughout the world, and regulating politics based on religion is like trying to play blackjack when everyone else has uno cards or monopoly money. Impossible, to put it bluntly. 

  Relating back to Roe V. Wade, the idea of when a child is created set forth is wrong not because it is from a church or because determining when life begins is tough, but because it conflicts with the idea of when life begins based on other religions. Not only this but it takes away the autonomy for women to decide what they want to do with their body, and this new law does not consider if the child is dangerous to the women’s health.

  In the bible, life begins at conception. In Islamic tradition life is generally recognized as beginning one hundred and twenty days after conception. Buddhism says that life begins when the first thought or consciousness arises in the child. Hinduism says three months in is when life begins. 

To say that life begins at one point or another based on your ideas and ideals is to disregard the ideas brought by others. 

  If you think that a church is wrong or you have a different idea or set of ideals than what is presented, do what you want. There is no one way to follow a religion or a god. You can pick and choose what to do and what not to if it sounds wrong or you disagree with it.

  The point is that the interpretations vary widely based on your religion or traditions, and placing a blanket term for the whole of the United States, based on your religion or the religion of someone in a court, violates the right of others to practice their religion how they want. It essentially says that the way their religion defines when life begins is wrong or incorrect. 

More articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here