A human’s hands form feats felt to be the greatest; that which is created possesses a beauty of originality because of its artificiality, but such objects also dignify their creator. Humans glorify their creations and then glorify themselves because their creations are so great: masterpieces are accolades that affirm credibility; structures have become a physical symbol for superiority. People built dams. People built skyscrapers; there is control of, and therefore, a belief of right to the terrain. But who etched out the rivers? Who drafted the mountains? If what is crafted has an inherent attraction, then the observation of the natural world as a true spectacle begs the curiosity if, it too, was diligently, divinely formulated. Religion is the first scientific thought to explain existence by analyzing our awed surroundings as designed, and the logic that everything significant must have been manufactured is influencing every institution because humanity is determined to reflect the ultimate model of construction: God’s masterpiece. In the eyes of the practicing, a faith that explains all, once arbitrary, aspects of life deserves nothing less than portioned instillation of specific principles throughout each organization of communal ordinance: an entity that makes humanity’s grandest designs seem microscopic must contain an elevated awareness. No matter the laws restricting the combination of church and state, The United States of America is not excluded from where private, religious ideology has infiltrated because of the government exclusively pertaining to one factional, theoretical perception, but it is by linking crafts to credibility that allows for the constant reference of religion. Citing the ultimate author of truth enforces an inescapable and exhausted cycle: the fight over who knows God’s word best, that which is well catalogued by American events and documents.
Resorting to religion is for the reason of establishing incontrovertible credibility for a specific argument, as anything linked to holy practice may be unquestionably accepted by fellow worshipers. The commonly beloved tenet of private citizens inciting direction for political decisions has shaped the very base on which America strongly stands. During the 17th and 18th century, the American colonies, under British control, were exploited by a dictatorial power, causing a crying desire for a government of the people. With any government that is dedicated to civil interest, the constituents must initially combine to socially accept the duties of participating in a greater system. In 1639, the governor of Massachusetts, John Winthrop, juxtaposes the similarity between faith and submission to governance through a public announcement titled, “The Little Speech.” Winthrop defines two liberties of a person: natural, and civil. Natural liberty is the freedom to individually act in any manner for personal gain, while civil liberty is every individual giving up certain freedoms to uphold alternative, sanctified rights (Cummings p. 17). Labeling civil liberty as one of morale and authority, Winthrop attests it is much like religious compliance, in that citizens are trustfully following the orders of a superior essence, in hopes of a beneficial result for both the encapsulating environment and oneself (Cummings p. 18). In a time where many were doubtful of the government, the reference of religion catalyzes individuals to obey the system as if it were of the same substantiality as God, ultimately solidifying the American virtue of willingly becoming a subject of law. Democracy, however, was still far from being reached, for many felt rebellious if going against the king to establish a representative institution. Therefore, the very aspect which gave despots the prerogative right to rule is the only tool capable of convincing citizens that emancipation from a monarchy is justly deserved. The paper, “Democracy Is Found in Scripture,” by John Wise, is a clear explanation that democracy is of divine design (Cummings p. 26). In 1717, colonies had begun questioning the authority of a foreign ruler who could never understand the needs and ideology of the people. Colonists were not British, and there was no representation of any colonial beliefs in the government that demanded subjection to unapproved laws. The citizens sought for a government of the people, but what could ever be compelling enough to cause treasonous disbandment from a parent country’s monarchy? John Wise referenced the only kingdom that commoners were more loyal to: that of Christ. As God is nature, and creator of all natural behavior, a democracy which mimics God’s council is the most protective of our natural rights (Cummings p. 26). Wise attested that not only is a democracy the purest, most righteous government that people should participate in, but that a king should never attempt to substitute God’s ruling, therefore condemning the British monarchy to an image of devilish immorality for testing holy will (Cummings p. 27). In a dispute between subjects and absolutist governments, the empowerment of citizens often occurs with an almighty buttress to stand behind. As the 18th century staggeringly progressed, so did the struggle of soon-to-be states being granted proper treatment. While colonists were disgruntled by the fact that King Charles I was insufficiently suiting the needs of an entirely new, developed community, fear ran through individuals when imagining the consequences of a domestic rebuttal; yet a New England minister, Jonathan Mayhew, as interpreter of God’s will, testified through his paper, “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Nonresistance to the Higher Powers,” that none should worry of the rebellious thoughts, for it is the fault of the king for not upholding the responsibilities of power, set by scriptures within The Bible (Cummings p. 30). Referencing the statements of the Christian apostle, St. Paul, Mayhew discloses that societal rulers are the ordinances of God that must be obeyed; but since God is the protector of community welfare, any ruler that goes against such will is not entitled to any citizen’s submission (Cummings p. 32). To further amplify the sinful essence of corrupt leaders, Mayhew insists that to punish those who improperly handle power, it is the duty of citizens to please divine contrivance by resisting all acts of terror towards the benefit of the public and to replace that vacuum with a power stemming from the governed (Cummings p. 32). As the idea of independence increased throughout the 18th century, citizens were desperate for any supporting evidence to justify refuting the British monarchy. The common belief in God was a stronghold for rallying radicals to relieve the country of corrupt behavior, and with the holy factors as defense, subjects became rulers of themselves. The religious influence concerning the resentment of a despot banded the fearful together in order to construct a realm of safety in which all could reside, respecting that none should have prerogative access to power of any kind, whether economic or governmental. The statements of each pre-revolution, American thinker have utilized divinity to instill virtues that currently exist in the modern political mind. Through the power of God, Americans have developed the essential understanding of what births a productive and stable governmental system: will by the people to fall under control of an organization for a grand, mutual benefit of all constituents, oversight of the organization by the governed so there are no decisions made by characters, or a single character, not subject to the consequences of any legislation, and every act of an official needing to be a representation of the electorate’s opinion so self-interest of the majority is casted, rather than that of a selfish, corrupt individual, which would subsequently call for punishment and removal of any detrimental figure that seeks to disrupt the advancement of a democratic community. The roots of American government have been secured, and the growth of a privatized desire to overthrow a tyrannical parasite that restricts freedom is soon to bloom with an increasing number of additives in the form of religious justification for democracy.
The onset of American independence gives way to further exemplify religious ideology as a protector of rights and humanity, yet as all cases of humanity, there will be many who manipulate a holy word to sanctify atrocity. As much as Christian values have endowed power to democratic beliefs, ideas from God have been exhorted to suit the vision of malicious marauders of morality, ultimately contradicting purity in religious guidance. As The United States of America officially arose as an active country, so did the war of determining the aspects -and extent- of separation between church and state. The obstacle of subduing religious influence is particularly difficult when the formation of America was inspired by divinity. The document which freed the American colonies, The Declaration of Independence, has begun the country’s self-sufficiency by immediately portraying religion as a saving grace from a ruler’s oppression (Cummings p. 64). Once a leader has usurped the powers from God to command the actions and restrict the rights of subjects, only the clarification of skewed accreditation will correct the placement of where ordinance is to descend. The unanimously affirmed document states that humankind is endowed with unalienable rights by God’s nature, where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be upheld by any system conspired by people (Cummings p. 64). Furthering the establishment of divinely derived rights, the declaration goes on to entail that people have the duty of altering or abolishing any government which infringes upon holy demands (Cummings p. 64). The continuation of regularly using the resource of religion may seem productive, but the construction that God is on one side of an opinion will quickly engineer arrogance within the organization that rests on superior justification. A new problem is then created in American society: since God is supportive of the current government, all acts are therefore morally inline, not to be disturbed, and if so, solely possible by evil. The debate of who is more righteous, and who is of the highest biblical similarity, spawns nothing more than a stalemate between progression and conservation, prohibiting humanity to look within oneself for transcending movements. Each debacle that chronologically follows in American history is prolonged and stunted by relying on ancient, traditional theories to be the backbone of beliefs.
The 19th century became a time of nationalism, where all Americans were saturated with the idea that The United States was the purposeful craft of God, and should be strengthened, expanded, protected, and occupied by the American citizens. The outcome of The War of 1812 secured the dominance of the country and inspired many to enlarge the republic’s reaches to the western coast; the national embarkment was deemed the Manifest destiny (USHistory.org para. 1). The self-absorbed American belief that citizens were destined to spread culture and civilization could only derive from religious insinuation. The western lands, just as the east coast, were not previously vapid of heritage. There was a vast and rooted existence of Native Americans who suffered from the religiously conceited American institution. As settlers ventured west, the goal was not just for personal prosperity and happiness, but a darker reason hidden behind the false accusation of cleansing morality. The wandering pioneers sought to Christianize the Native Americans, labeled as heathens, to save souls (USHistory.org para. 2), but the displacement and destruction of an indigenous culture is in no way holy, but an act of harrowing oppression, caused by the manipulation of a religious text to justify any horrendous behavior towards nonbelieving outsiders. Religion, once guidance for internal good, has been captured by aggressive factions to insight prejudice mentality, desired to be reproduced and passed on. The testimony by the apparent creator of all humankind has now been interpreted by a fractional few to detrimentally dominate the rest. A dreadfully notorious case would be the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Elected in 1829 as the seventh President of The United States, Jackson proceeded to initiate his plans of The Indian removal Act during his second annual message to Congress in 1830 (History.com Staff para. 5). To begin his speech, Jackson applauds the commencement of removing all Natives from white civilization as a, “happy consummation,” (Jackson para. 1). The bigoted politician goes on to state that hopefully the separation will, “cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community,” (Jackson para. 2). The origin of hatred towards Native Americans by grotesque white supremacists stems from the idea that if one is not Christian, there is no civilized code for guidance towards advancement, as America was led. From the dependency of applying religious values into governmental action, Americans are then crutched by surveying a community as credible only when living under the same religious code, yet the very religion used to identify proper nations is what conspired leaders to enact genocidal emigration. No longer is religion a tool to carve out justice from a crude environment, but a weapon to cause death amongst all who are uninvolved. The reason no government should allow religious influence into political decisions is to ensure that there is no subjected persecution of one group by another, for hateful tyranny is never a viable option, even if abstractly supported by an ancient faith. Nonetheless, American laws in the 19th century are majorly supportive of the white male, and since the privileged presume to be divinely so, the institution is perpetually stifled by the impetus of progression being in the form of disproving religious reasoning with a remastered interpretation of the same religion. The fault is citing a broad text with infinite interpretations that may be used to exhibit morality, rather than relying on inner intuition that is released when observing the current state of society.
Humanity is never correct with any first attempt, if at all. Therefore, religion as a stanchion for any law is dangerous, as conservation of the law, solely for being religiously acclaimed, halts any adjustment that must be applied. Yes, religious interpretation is acknowledged as helpful in establishing a democracy in America, but suffrage, the key component to government gaining consent from the governed, was not rightfully granted to all citizens until 1920 with the 19th amendment (Cummings p. 474). Precedingly, when fighting for abolition in 1848, Frederick Douglass spoke at a meeting of the Anti-Slavery Association, addressing the problems with America that may not be domestically noticed (Cummings p. 253). As he numerously states the brutality and immorality of slavery, Douglass proceeds to discredit and oppose the pro-slavery citizens who resort to, “the Union as it is,”, “the Constitution as it is,”, and, “the Church as it is,” because following the fallacy that a white man deserves more rights than an African-American is undeniably unholy, no matter what any law prior has determined (Cummings p. 254). Sadly, an entire war, along with a temporary division of The United States, unfolded due to clinging to earlier ideology which incorrectly used God to endorse racism and continually enslave near half the population of America; again, the only defense against such oppressive power is announcing God as an opposing radical. Another abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, at the same meeting of the Anti-Slavery Association, stated that, “God will vindicate the oppressed, by the laws of justice which he has founded,” (Cummings p. 259). Voicing the justification for ending slavery with the exact literature that intensified white, male dominance is a paradoxical solution that will be rendered ineffective if new laws are consistently created on the grounds of religious values, such as with the case of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her paper during 1848, “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions.” When vouching for gender equality and women’s suffrage, Stanton proclaims that dominating males have manipulated the actions between church and state to contradict the God-given rights bestowed to all of humanity (Cummings p. 249). Even with such a clear testimony, the law to grant women’s suffrage did not emerge until the following century (Cummings p. 474), which remains unaccompanied by the existence of racial and gender equality in the 21st century, approximately two hundred year later. All diabolical beliefs, once said to be demanded, then later refuted, by God, were birthed by allowing the inferiorly enlightened to formulate laws with the assistance of personal religious interpretation, ultimately and indefinitely restricting the freedoms of all who are unlike the current -or past- legislators.
The influence of religion in the American Political mind has been extremely prominent, instilling values through laws that have lasted much longer than the creators. Religion may have been a rallying cry to recruit support for Democracy, but soon the holy texts were taken advantage of and used to administer an order that praised one group of people. Religion is only unifying when the goal is to create a larger identical group, but when to gather diversity as the optimal means of advancement, all ancient and conservative ideology must be disregarded. The only reason to enforce new legislation is when the current political situation is evaluated for faults that diminish community welfare, which are then identified with actual, situational evidence; and the only reasons to incite change must come from present entities, even if solely being composed of the profane.
Works Cited (MLA)
Cummings, Michael, ed. American Political Thought. 7th ed.Washington, DC: CQ, 2015. Print.
History.com Staff. "Trail of Tears." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2009. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.
President Jackson's Message to Congress "On Indian Removal", December 6, 1830; Records of the United States Senate, 1789‐1990; Record Group 46; Records of the United States Senate, 1789‐1990; National Archives and Records Administration (NARA]