Separation of Church and State Essay -- Government

IntroductionSeparation of Church and state has been a topic seen by the Supreme Court over the past 150+ years. Our countries religious freedoms and how its interpreted have been managed by both sides with reasonable argument. The framers of our federal giving medication had laid down a series of guidelines for a free and easygoing society. One of the about controversial clauses in the First Amendment of our Constitution where it states that no law will endorse a religion or require the rights of the people to exercise their religious rights has been part of a national debate since the First Congress was in session. Can you blatantly ignore a religion and make sure they dont get whatever establishment funding for their schools because of their religious status? Is it constitutional to ignore drug laws because it is a persons religious belief to use them in their practice? In this essay I will intend by dint of the Framers papers, early political debates and var ious Supreme Court cases to show why establishment clause and free exercise clause were deposit into the Constitution in order to building a wall of staring(a) separation between Church & State.Historical ContextTo understand what the Framers of the Constitution thought was an appropriate relationship between a presidency and a religious institution, we first should look at their own literary productions 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 conclude its doors. ... ...eacon Press, 1951. McConnell, Michael M. The Origins and Historical discernment of Free Exercise of Religion.Harvard Law study. 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 Grand Convention. 1st ed. current 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.