Separation of Church and State Literature review

Separation of Church and State - Literature review Example Second, and perhaps, on the contrary, the notion of a constitutional "separation of church and state" (a phrase that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution) is an influential symbol in American political discourse. Though there is little agreement relating to the precise meaning of such separation, the principle itself is not normally challenged in American politics (Jelen, 2000). Thus, 1Separation of church and state was definitely not an invention of the Enlightenment political theory that might have prompted similar thoughts in the mind of the respected Thomas Jefferson. Certainly, it misleads to analyze the lively experiment in political terms at all, for the Providence regime was just as certainly and decisively rooted in Protestant theologies as was the Puritans' city on a hill. The encompassing description of liberty of conscience was the systematizing principle of society, and it produced a kind of severance of church and state. It is thus significant to keep in mind that the cleavage was meant to protect the church and the soul from the debasing influence of the magistrate, to protect the garden of the church from corruption in the boondocks of the world. The quest for spiritual purity quite factually led into the political realm, where he was basically traditional, if not authoritarian. This priority of the religious is clearly evident in the legislative explanation for the revised 1798 Act Relative to Religious Freedom and the Maintenance of Ministers: Whereas Almighty, God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitation, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and is a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his almighty power to do that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an appropriation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unre mitting labors for the instruction of mankind.  Ã‚