American Secularism: Intent Analysis Essay -- Politics, The Separation

Dwight Eisenhower once wrote that, â€Å"Without God, there could be no American form of government† (Forbes, 2009: 1). Decades later, in a speech in Turkey, President Barack Obama claimed that America does not consider itself a Judeo-Christian nation. Modern arguments about the separation of church and state tend to seize upon such statements. But neither opinion can truly elucidate the true nature of American secularism (or lack thereof). Instead of criticizing Eisenhower for breaching that fabled wall of separation, or President Obama for conducting an arbitrary public opinion poll during a speech, focus must shift to the Founders. Specifically, the words of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, those men most widely documented on this issue, must be examined. From the synthesis of these men’s views, the documents they had a leading role in crafting, and historical perspective, a vision of American religious freedom is apparent. With the Constitution, the Framers inst ituted bold, practical boundaries for the interaction of organized religion and the federal government (Jefferson’s â€Å"wall†). But they did not envision the federally mandated â€Å"walls† that currently stand between the (local) public square and basic religious manifestations or practices. A narrower interpretation of the Establishment clause is closer to what was instituted by the Framers. This paper will argue that a wall of separation between church and (the federal) state was erected only insofar as the Constitution dictates it in the religion clauses. It will also posit that the present interpretation of that separation is a thoroughly modern construct built by modern society and actions of the federal government. This will focus around two main arguments: that federal... .... This divergence is the result of an effort to enlist the Framers in a defense of certain positions; positions based in legal frameworks never enacted by those men. If these arguments are accepted, a reevaluation of federal attitudes is in order. Rolling back a century of incorporation doctrine would be both impossible and foolish. But the executive can refrain from prosecuting states who institute laws that appear within the realm of state sovereignty in the area of secularism. Ultimately, of course, the decision will rest with the courts. If the arguments presented here (and similarly elsewhere) are accepted, an overhaul in judicial interpretation of the Establishment Clause should be undertaken by the judicial branch. Thus a legitimate debate over secularism can begin that does not inaccurately shroud modern constructs of secularism in the aura of the Framers.