The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” is used to describe distant relationship between church and state. The phrase is a metaphor initially contained in a letter addressed to Danbury Baptist Association by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson used the phrase to describe function and meaning of Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The metaphor is conventionally understood to mean that the state should not make any laws or engage in any actions that enhance supremacy or favor any religion and should also not interfere with free exercise of religion or worship (Sorauf 7). In turn, not religion should not significantly influence or interfere with state operations and activities.

The concept has been applied in different countries in varying degrees, with some nations supporting a single religion and others supporting total separation. Although the US Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase as having an absolute impact on US law in some cases and found that the phrase lacks an absolute impact in other cases. Thus, strict separation does not exist in the US (Sorauf 7). Whether there should be strict separation is an ongoing debate. One of the key important issues discussed in the debate is the possible impact of strict separation, and this is the topic explored in this paper. Although some churches have been advocating for strict separation, it may have severe detrimental outcomes to the citizens in the long-term, which is currently one of the growing concerns for the US government.

DISCUSSION

Strict separation between church and state can have several negative profound impacts in the long-term. One of the current rising concerns for the US government is how some religions or religious cults are influencing members to engage in criminal acts. There are cases in which leaders of religious cults have brainwashed and influenced members to harm themselves. The leaders benefit through acquiring material possessions from the members. A good example is the issue of People’s Temple in which the leader, Reverend Jim Jones, influenced 900 members to voluntarily drink a deadly poison called cyanide (Mikul 119). If the US government did not intervene to the issue, there is likelihood that such cases would increase tremendously. Some cults also use religious beliefs as a reason for harming or annihilating non-members. In such cases, the leaders of cults influence the members to dispense existence (Nelson 83). Precisely, they teach the members that they have a right to live, while non-members are inferior and do not have a right to live. Ultimately, they influence the members to think that they have a mandate to harm or annihilate non-members. This is the concept used by most terrorist groups. Some major terrorist groups existing today base their actions on wrong interpretation of Muslim religious teachings.

There is vast evidence of criminal activities carried out by such groups during the recent years. The Serbs, for instance, applied that logic to kill non-members in Balkans in 1990s (Mikul, 133). Among other reasons, al-Qaeda applies the same logic when carrying out Jihad activities against the US citizens and citizens of other countries. Recently, Al Shabaab, a militant Islamic fundamentalism, has been responsible for mass killings on non-members in Somalia, Kenya and other neighboring countries (Mikul, 133). A similar logic has been used by Boko Haram to cause instability and engage in mass killings in Nigeria. In general, a research review conducted by Young and Zimbardo (87) indicated that such religious cults are increasingly becoming the major cause of instability and insecurity around the world. In case of strict separation between church and state, there is likelihood that such religious cults would sprout and engage in unimaginable destruction. This calls for the US government to intervene and prevent sprout of extremist groups that base their logic in engaging in criminal activities on religious beliefs. An increase in the level of instability and insecurity is a concern of all citizens, and not just the government.

Without the intervention of the state, some people may use their religious beliefs as a reason for denying non-members fundamental rights. The US law protects the citizens from discrimination based on personal attributes such as religion, sexual orientation, age, gender, ethnicity and race. There are instances where an employer may deny a job applicant a chance because of religious background (Gregory 78). A worker may also be treated unfavorably because of his or her religious background. Without intervention of state, some people would suffer discrimination due to issues related to religion. There are recent cases where the state has intervened to prevent such discrimination. A good example is the Campos v. City of Blue Springs (2002) case in which an employee was discriminated against by his employer because of his religious background (Gregory 256). The court found that the employer ignored the right of worship of the employee and thus, ruled in favor of the employee. In case strict separation between church and state occurs, mistreatments and discrimination based on religion are likely to increase significantly.

Lastly, strict separation between the church and state would affect the law of the US. Currently, the criminal and civil laws in the US are highly influenced by religious morals. When framing the constitution initially, legislatures in the US considered the moral judgments of the society, most of which were based on religious teachings (Scheb and Scheb 197). However, they were cautious to consider morals that did not trample on rights and liberties of individuals. Most of the morals borrowed from the teachings of the Christian Bible and Muslim Quran teachings are the bases for the current US criminal and civil laws. The Christian Bible and Muslim Quran, for instance, teach the followers not to engage in acts such as murdering, stealing, breaking of peace, damaging of properties of others and raping. Engaging in such acts is also wrong, according to the US constitution (Scheb and Scheb 197). Thus, US laws are inextricably connected to religious teachings. Although this may not be one of the intents of Jefferson’s metaphor of separation, strict separation may imply that religious teachings should not influence the law. Until today, courts still rely on moral judgments to make laws, some of which are not explicit in the constitution. Thus, it is difficult to contemplate a situation in which the US laws are not influenced by religious morals.

Conclusion

Overall, separation between church and state exists in different countries in varying degrees. There is separation in the US, to some degree, but there is no strict separation. There is still a ranging debate on whether there should strict separation. Of utmost importance is the potential impact of strict separation. As noted in the analysis, strict separation may open an avenue for some people to engage in criminal acts in the name of their religious beliefs. Thus, instability and insecurity may rise to unimaginable levels. Secondly, discrimination based on religious background is likely to rise significantly due to lack of state intervention. If strict separation means that the state should not rely on religious morals to make laws, the laws established in future would lack the moral aspect, which is vital.

Works Cited

Gregory, Raymond F. Encountering Religion in the Workplace: The Legal Rights and

Responsibilities of Workers and Employers. New York: Cornell University Press, 2011. Print.

Mikul, Chris. The Cult Files: True Stories from the Extreme Edges of Religious Beliefs. Sidney:

Murdoch Books Pty Ltd, 2010. Print.

Nelson, Geoffrey. Cults, New Religions and Religious Creativity. New York: Routledge, 2011.

Print.

Scheb, John and John Scheb. Criminal Law. New York: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print.

Sorauf, Frank Joseph. The Wall of Separation: The Constitutional Politics of Church and State.

New Jersey; Princeton University Press, 2015. Print.

Young, Thomas and Phillip Zimbardo. “A review of cultic studies.” Cultic Studies

Journal, 51.2 (2011): 87-93

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW