The separation of church and state is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. The delicate line between the two, however, is often crossed when religious practices overlap with government regulation.
Thomas Jefferson established “a wall of separation between church and state” in the Constitution to ensure such independence. Guaranteed by the First Amendment, the United States does not discriminate based on personal preferences of worship.
Christianity is a major religion in the U.S. and many practice it. Crucifixes on government property go unnoticed until attention is brought to them. Public schools, too, are not allowed to display or discuss religious beliefs.
This law was enforced at a recent Christmas concert for New Hope Chapel at a fundraising opportunity. The church brought together numerous bands to perform. New Hope was raising money to donate to a charity that helps poor people in Africa. Moanalua High School was scheduled to perform for the sixth year until their plans were cancelled.
Mitch Kahle, founder of the Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church, is an activist advocating separation. He discovered that all ticket sales went to the church, not directly to the charity. This raised an issue due to the direct involvement of a public school and a church. The Department of Education was forced to cancel the concert as a result of lawsuit threats.
Separation between State and Church must be definite and prohibition against government endorsement of religious practices enforced.
Despite the cause benefiting from the collaboration of Church and State, the two must remain separated.
Deborah Kula • Feb 7, 2013 at 7:11 am
Noelle – I appreciated your piece on separation of church and state and would like to add an additional perspective. While the phrase “separation of church and state” has become a popular way to refer to the issue, those words are not actually in the US Constitution. Rather, the first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I would propose that allowing groups (religiously affiliated or not) to rent public facilities is not establishing a state religion.
An even greater concern would be government regulations that would impose policies upon organizations that directly challenge deeply held religious convictions. Social policies that are intended to benefit society at large must not force organizations to enact procedures that go against their religious foundation.
The flip side of the “separation of church and state” argument that is less frequently promoted is equally important: ” or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Respectfully,
Deborah Kula