Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

nonsense (1 Viewer)

Though an age old debate, in contemporary America it is one that rages most frequently and most tenaciously. It affects every citizen of this country and as the diversity of our melting pot grows so must the modernization of our values. Or at least this is the case for many Americans and why the role of religion in politics is such a heatedly argued topic. At Xavier University such a debate took place between one: Mr. Religious Right and two: Mrs. Secular Left.
Almost immediately, Mr Religious Right succeeded in dividing the topic between what he considered to be the two main issues: religious figures/organizations contributing to party’s campaign success and the separation of church and state. He then went on to explain how his organization believes that as a result of a more secular government the values of American families would continue to deteriorate from a state he previously described as “despicable”. Two of the things his organization fought were pornography and of course, same-sex marriages (in the name of preserving Judeo-Christian values). It came as no surprise when Mr. Religious Right then said he believed the separation of church and state simply did not exist and that the phrase itself is not even used until long after the drafting of the constitution. He also added that while his organization supported certain candidates, such as Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, he did not consider his organization responsible for any contribution to either political party.
On the other hand Ms. Secular Left made the point that organizations such as Mr. Religious Right’s had to be held responsible for their role in getting candidates elected, if the issue is indeed religious organizations supporting certain party’s, and that while anyone can claim that they endorse candidates of all party’s you would be hard pressed to find a democrat as willing to stand with such an organization as opposed to say a republican. Beyond the private activities of small religious groups in the United States, Mrs. Secular Left pointed out that the separation of church and state was a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson himself and many of the religious connotations we see in our government today (such as “In God We Trust” imprinted on our currency and “One Nation Under God” read in our pledge of allegiance) were not introduced until as late as the 1950’s. She then explained that as such removing religious influence more from the government isn’t some newfangled idea, it’s one that actually returns to the roots of this country’s foundation and the principles that helped write the 1st Amendment.
The thing that removed any sympathy from Mr. Religious Right’s position that he may have had was his statement that no wall between church and state existed. He seemed to be under the impression that because the specific wording “separation of church and state” is used nowhere in the constitution the concept itself is completely absent. This is a lapse of logic and rational that simply shocks the system. Supposedly some of the most educated minds in America prescribe to this nonsense and as such it is no wonder gay marriage bans have been successful across the country. The constitution itself expressly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and if this doesn’t imply a separation between Congress and the Church, what possibly could? Is it mad to say that the government banning same-sex marriage on the premise that it violates Christian values does not “respect an establishment of religion”? This is the only question that need be asked when it comes to weighing the role of religion in government and to me the answer is quite clear.