| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

JuliusFinalEssay

Page history last edited by PBworks 18 years, 3 months ago

Americans’ Right to Moral Representation

 

Since the dawn of this nation, the United States of America has prided itself on the fact that all Americans are represented in government. To uphold this tradition and stay true to the American people, I am proposing the creation of a committee that would represent Americans religious beliefs in Congress. Representation in government was a main point that the United States was founded on. Nearly two hundred and thirty years ago, while still a colony, Americans took a stand against their mother country Great Britain demanding representation in government. In recent years the government has had to deal with issues that address the morality of its voting constituents. Legislators have found themselves in an ongoing debate over the separation of church and state and how the government should rule on issues that lay in the realms of religion. There is a need for religious representation of some for to be present in the government. The creation of a committee that would report to congress would provide for this need. This group would ensure that the American people would receive the representation in government that our founding fathers fought for when this great nation was created.

 

To stay representative of its people, the United States government needs to provide for the religious peoples in America. An overwhelming percentage of people in the United States follow some sort of religion. According to the latest census ninety percent of the United States population follows a religion. (United States of America, 2) Furthermore forty seven percent of the population in the United Sates is Christian. (Population, 56) Given these two facts it is safe to say that the vast majority of the United Sates is comprised of people that believe in some type of religion. Only ten percent of the country listed themselves as atheists in the last census. (United States of America, 2) This shows that religion is a big part of the American society. If the government were to ignore this fact they would be essentially turning their back on the American people and refusing to give them the representation that they deserve. When the government has to rule on a controversial issue, the people’s beliefs should be represented.

 

In recent years with growing frequency the United States has found itself having to deal with issues that carry high social implications because they deal with people’s religious beliefs. Issues regarding the right to die, abortion, stem cell research, and cloning all have been the source of controversial debate. The reason that this debate exists is because these issues mean a lot to people that follow some type of religion. Congress has not been able to make a clear ruling on how they want to govern these issues so some of these issues are currently governed only by the results of previous Supreme Court Rulings. One example of this is abortion. The United States Government first had to deal with this issue in the infamous Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. Since the ruling on that case the Supreme Court has had to rule on issues that regard the precedent that was set forth by the case. The issue has presented itself, as something that needs clear definition however, there has been no Congressional law that has been created. Congress needs to be able to make a decision as to how the United States will govern over these issues so that American’s rights are protected.

 

The next group of people in America to be represented by our government should be people with religious beliefs. From the time when this nation was created, steps toward equality for all people have been taken. In the early days of the United States, the government represented only white male landholders. The right to vote was then extended to all white males. The next groups that received the right to vote were African American males followed by women. Socially steps toward equality for African Americans and women during the mid twentieth century. This progression shows the efforts that the country is taking to ensure that all citizens of the United States receive the proper rights that they deserve in the government. The next group that should receive rights in the government is the people that hold religious beliefs. A large percentage of this country is comprised of people that follow a religion and the government is not fully representing them by ignoring this fact. Recognizing the rights of these people would allow the United States to take one more step toward equality in the nation.

 

At its core, this topic addresses a long-standing Constitutional debate. From the early years of the Constitution, Americans have debated the separation of church and state. This topic, which is not clearly defined in the Constitution, is one that I wish to shed a light on how we have reached our current national standing on the relationship between the government and religion. Given the size of the religious body in the United States society today, church and state have become more strictly separated than what was intended by the drafter of the Constitution.

 

To fully understand the intentions of the language of the Constitution one must first recognize that this document was drafted nearly two hundred and thirty years ago. At the dawn of this nation, when the Constitution was drafted, it was uncertain how the country would take shape. The Constitution itself is composed of a loose language so that it would be able to serve as a lasting document to govern the country. The section of the first amendment that pertains to the relationship between church and state contains some ambiguity. While the intentions of Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers will never be uncovered in their true state, we can look at the factors that shaped their words.

 

The line of the Constitution in question reads that the government should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (The Myth, 2) This line serves two main purposes. The first function of this line is to ensure that there would never be a single religion that was financially backed by the government. Great Britain, the country that we broke away from, had a national religion that quickly imposed on the personal religions of its people, even going as far as to forbid other forms of worship in private homes. Americans in their new country did not want this type of control to ever exist over them. Thomas Jefferson understood this fact therefore when the line was written it ensured that a situation would never exist like the one in Great Britain. The second function of this line is to allow for free worship in the United States.

 

The notion of the strict separation of church and state does not stem from the constitution, but from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. In the early 1800’s there was rumor that the Congressionalist religion would be made the religion of the United States. To protect against a situation being created like that in England Thomas Jefferson cited the line in the Constitution, as meaning there should be strict separation between church and state. Therefore, this proves that the idea of strict separation of church and state was created by a source outside of the Constitution itself.

 

The interpretation of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists is the source of much of the debate. Depending if people wish to argue whether church and state should be separated or not this letter is used in different ways. Those that wish to say that church and state should be separated will cite the letter as evidence of Thomas Jefferson’s true intentions with the Constitutional language. However, much like the argument that I have made, if one wishes to claim that only the Constitution serves to govern, they will recognize that the letter to the Danbury Baptists is a completely separate document from the Constitution itself.

 

The Constitution and the language that comprises it are the high law that governs the people of the United States. The beauty of the document is that it was written with some ambiguity so that it would be able to be a living document that would never lose its relevance. Many pieces of the Constitution are able to form with the times and are open to new interpretations as different situations arise. At the time Thomas Jefferson was the one that was interpreting the Constitution in such a way that he could block a situation from occurring that he felt would be potentially dangerous for the rights of all Americans. Today, the government could interpret the line of the Constitution as less strict separation of church and state given the apparent need.

 

The founding fathers of this country wrote the constitution in such a way so that it could adapt as the United States continued to grow as a nation over time. Evidence of this can be seen in Article One Section 8 paragraph 18 of the Constitution. This piece of the constitution is typically referred to as the necessary and proper clause or the elastic clause. Stated here is that the United States government is allowed “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” (Necessary-and-proper clause, 2) This section of the Constitution gives Congress the power to create new laws or anything that allows the enumerated powers of Congress to be carried out more fully. One instance where the necessary and proper clause was used was in the creation of the national bank. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention that Congress can create a national bank however, at the time it was seen as being necessary and proper therefore Congress created the bank. Similar to this the Constitution does not explicitly lay out that there should be moral representation in the government. There is a substantial need for this and it would aide in Congress carrying out the duties that are set forth by the Constitution. Constitutionally this clause allows the legal creation of such a committee that would exist in Congress.

 

There are many possibilities for how the people of the United States could have moral representation in the government. One of the most direct solutions to this would be to have moral representation in the legislative branch of the government that is in charge of creating the laws for the nation. This is why I have chosen that there should be committee a present in this branch ensuring that the legislature keeps in mind the religious body of this nation. Regarding the committee there are many questions that must be answered to clearly define what it will do. Questions regarding the committee’s creation, the size, the function of the committee, how it will operate, and how often the committee will operate, all must be clearly defined.

 

The way in which the morals of the United States citizens will be represented the best without infringing on others rights is to have the function of the committee be to provide religious insight on controversial topics. The committee will not have a singular religious agenda. It will instead report to congress on the beliefs of any religious body that would be affected by a law that is being presented in the legislative branch. If executed properly this gives the committee the potential to represent all religious bodies while avoiding governmental support of any one religion, or the infringement of rights of non-religious people.

 

As mentioned previously, the creation of the committee is constitutional because of the necessary and proper clause. However, the way in which the committee will be selected and reelected is still under question. One of the better ways for this to be done would be to have the committee members come from the legislature and be voted on by the legislative body. Unlike a national election this would be much more efficient. Also the members should come from both parties present in Congress. This would avoid any side agendas from forming and the committee would stay true to its cause.

 

The committee should stay small in size but never be smaller than approximately five members. By keeping the committee small communication and therefore efficiency of the committee will be better. If the committee becomes to small personal agendas may interfere with the function of the committee and this should be avoided.

 

The questions still remain as to how the committee will communicate its findings to Congress and how often they will do so. The best way to approach this would be to have the committee research controversial issues that are due up on the agenda for Congress prior to when they are to be voted on. If the committee feels that they have pertinent information to share they would then apply for a limited block of time to present their findings. This way the committee would not be able to filibuster an issue but only carry out its function.

 

Some people stand in opposition to there being any form of religion in the government. One of their reasons that they have for making this claim is that they do not want to pay taxes to support something that will not help them. However, welfare is a program that exists but very few people receive the aide. Everyone pays taxes to support this program but it serves only a small percentage of the population. The way in which I designed this committee was so it would not hinder any group of people and would be likely to help a large percentage of the population. It is expected that this committee would meet some opposition. However given the large percentage of people in the United States that do follow religion, more people would be for the program than against it. In the overall view of costs in the United States, the cost of the creation of the committee would be a menial amount.

 

In this essay I have made the claim that there is need in the United States for moral representation in the government. By demonstrating the religious body that exists in the United States the need for this representation has been backed by statistical data. The creation of a committee that would be representative of different religious bodies that are present in America could be one way in which the US could provide for this need. A non-partisan group that would report to congress on controversial issues would not infringe on anyone’s rights, rather it would only help to better represent the people that comprise this nation.

 

Works Cited

 

Bonta Steve "Church and State Should Not Be Separate." Civil Liberties. Auriana Ojeda, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints Series. Greenhaven Press, 2004

 

"The Myth of Separation of Church and State." The Myth of Separation of Church and State. 21 Nov. 2005 <http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html>.

 

“Population.” 2004. US Census Bureau. 9 Dec. 2005 <http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/pop.pdf>

 

"United States of America." Wikitravel. Wiki. 21 Nov. 2005 <http://wikitravel.org/en/United_States_of_America>.

 

Wolfe, Alan. "Church and State Should Be Separate." Civil Liberties. Ed. Auriana Ojeda, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints Series. Greenhaven Press, 2004

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.