One of the most controversial issues in history has been the issue of religion. Wars have been fought and many have died for their religion. The freedom of religion listed in the First Amendment including the establishment and exercise clause, therefore, has been very important in America. The two clauses included have also been very important in determining certain guidelines of religion in America. The establishment clause has several interpretations, but basically refers to government not being able to sponsor an official religion or church. So the government cannot declare that any certain religion is the religion of America. The exercise clause is basically self-explanatory, but allows people to practice the religion they please.
The Founders found it very necessary for this clause to be included for several reasons. Past experiences such as religious persecution had injured many societies and even in the early colonial times caused major conflict. The establishment clause protects corruption of the church by politics and, in turn, protects government from the conflicts involved with religion. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 when King James II was suspected of trying to establish Roman Catholicism as the established religion of England is a prime example of the conflicts the Founders could have used to argue for the establishment clause. The free exercise clause further separates church and state which based on previous situations such as the early colonial times makes sense that the Founders would have included it.
However, both of these clauses can be limited. The free exercise clause is limited when the right to practice a certain religion conflicts with other values and interests important to our free society. The establishment clause has been interpreted so broadly as to exclude any funds being provided to religious groups and to provide only common services granted to the citizens such as law enforcement and fire protection. The establishment clause is perhaps more controversial than the free exercise clause, however, because the establishment clause has many interpretations, while the goal of the free exercise clause is generally agreed upon.
Moreover, these clauses have conflicted in several cases. For example, the government funds the army and the chaplains who provide the soldiers with religious services when on duty, but some argue that goes against the principles of the establishment clause. Then again the free exercise clause would be violated if the government did not include chaplains in the army. Many students miss school every year for religious holidays, but the school providing for these absences is a violation of the establishment clause. However, if the students were not allowed to miss school for the religious events, some could argue that would be a violation of the free exercise clause. Nonetheless countless debates have occurred over these two clauses coinciding or one violating the other. The issue here would be how to resolve the conflicts. For the first conflict of chaplains, the government is not necessarily funding a religion, but an employee of the army. I believe that this way it does not violate the establishment clause. The second issue about religious holidays has been the driving force of changing “Christmas Break” to “Winter Break”. Giving every student the day off for these holidays is the simplest solution, I believe. In general, whether or not the government deals with each individual equally should be the deciding factor in the cases of the two clauses conflicting.
