Teddy Gaj

1/29/15
EH-102

Religious Freedom in America: The Major Junctions

Religious Freedom is an issue that has made a notable presence throughout

American and even World History. One reason for its continued presence could be
because of the complexity of the issue, as it has taken different forms and been deal with
in different contexts throughout different periods in history. The context that we are going
to look at is within a more recent period, namely in 20th Century America. When Religion
has been attacked in America, it has been from two aspects from an intellectual
standpoint and from a legal standpoint. These two standpoints seemed to create a causeand-effect scenario attacks on religion from an intellectual standpoint later created fuel
to lead attacks on religion in the courts. Looking into the intellectual and legal history of
the issue of Religious freedom will help provide a background on where the center of the
issue lies.
As the 20th century started into motion, events such as the Scopes Monkey Trial
and other events began to call into question whether or not the teaching of Creationism
was an establishment of religion or if Evolution should be taught in public schools in
place of Creationism, an attitude of science vs. religion was being created in society.
The factual credibility of religion in light of scientific discoveries was also being
questioned. It was not long before religion and Creationists were painted as rejecters of

science. However, Ken Ham founder of the Creation museum and co-founder of
Answers in Genesis offers that claims on this by both secular naturalists and even
some Creationist Christians are not true. He quotes common misconceptions made by
both Creationists and secular evolutionists about science and religion, that the two appear
to be at odds or are diametrically opposed and states, The Bibles account of beginnings
cannot be tested in a laboratory, so secular scientistsand even some Christiansbelieve
it is not science and must be classified as religion (Ham). To understand the debate, it is
critical to know what science and religion really are. Ken says that even though the root
word for science basically means knowledge, science is only a way of discovering
knowledge, but is not the only way to discover knowledge (Ham). What science really is
is simply observing natural laws and patterns in nature. This is a fundamental
understanding that all sciences are based on. But the problem is that science has not
observed everything, so if a certain constant is repeated, it assumes that it will continue to
do so even though it may not be the case. Ken Ham goes on to further discuss the two
types of science operational (experimentation and observations with things in the
present) and origin science (eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence such as
fossils, pottery, and canyons) and points out that the debate lies in origin science, where
he declares that Theory of Evolution assumes without observation that natural processes
are responsible for the origin and diversification of life (Ham). He adds that while not all
of it is based just on assumptions, as evolutionists look to natural selection, which is
available and testable today, to support their theories, though they recognize the limits of
their testing prohibits them from being able to physically prove stages of macroevolution
(Ham). Ham concludes with saying that once the two sciences have been clearly defined,

people begin to see the problem with the statement, Evolution is science, but the Bible is
religion because both Evolution and Creation makes assumptions about the past, making
it the center of this debate (Ham).
However, Jerry Coyne asserts that religion is actually a stumbling block in
accepting science, according to a report by the Harvard Gazette. Jerry Coyne is an
ecology professor at the University of Chicago who has spent years making arguments
against Creationism and has also published the book Why Evolution Is True (Coyne).
He expressed his concern for and agitation about the fact that acceptance of secular
evolution is at a low, as 60% of Americans do no believe in the idea, and claims that the
reason many are reluctant to accept evolution is because they hold on to a belief of God
in an American society that is notoriously dysfunctional (Coyne). Coyne himself says, If
you live in a society that is dysfunctional and unhealthy, where people are doing better
than you, you need solace from somewhere. You get it from religion. The thing that
blocks acceptance of evolution in America is religion (Coyne). Now while there are
scientific and factual reasons for not believing in evolution, there is a real problem with
how he appears to be attacking religious people for using their faith as a solace in a
troubling world, where theres no other place to find a lasting, healthy solace anyway.
Coyne has addressed some of the arguments made against evolution, such as those
who say that evolution is just a theory when the term theory is used differently in a
scientific sphere than with laymans terms. In the realm of Science, a Theory is a belief
based on observations. To the common person, a theory is generally something that is
usually baseless, a mere guess. Theories also tend to be widely accepted, and are often
put on the same level as fact, though the Evolutionary Theory has obviously not been

proven to be fact. However, Coyne argues that fossil records and embryology provide
strong evidence for evolution, proclaiming that characteristics in the embryos of certain
species provide links and validate supposed fossil records of various stages of different
species in evolution (Coyne). He also claims it is difficult to accept evolution from a
religious point of view because of how it contracdicts views on the origin of life. Coyne
then brings up another poll that states 64% of religious people would cling to faith when
cronfronted with facts that contradict their faith (Coyne). Unfortunately, both many
secularists and religious people believe religion and sceince are contradictory and oppose
one another. Coyne concludes that the solution is to address the issues in society and
create a more stable place. This is likely a call to make an attempt to eliminate the need
for a solae in religious faith in the face of hard times.
As the debate of religion versus science was heating up, opposers of religious
public proceedings began to make motions for legal changes, which led to the revival of
the doctrine of Separation of Church and State. While this doctrine was never written in
the Constitution, many used it and the establishment clause as an argument against
proceedings such as prayer in public schools. One of the iconic cases that brought this
issue to national attention was Engel v. Vitale, where a New York statesmen along with
other parents threatened to sue a New York school system over a state-endorsed prayer
that was being recited in schools. Representative William D. Graves presents a lengthy
and well-documented article regarding the doctrine of Separation of Church and State.
He starts by addressing how the ruling in the Supreme Courts Decision in Everson v.
Board of Education was based on an interpretation of the establishment clause by
Thomas Jefferson where he says that it is meant to form a wall of separation between

Church and State. Graves argues that the validity of this interpretation needs to be
closely examined, as it provided the basis for rulings on prayer in schools, the posting of
the ten commandments in schools, and other rulings (Graves). Graves also points out that
despite the First Amendment, each one of the original 14 states approved a state church
and that the term establishment doesnt refer to an establishment of a religion in
general, but rather by one in Congress (Graves). One can have nations government that
supports a religion without making it an official state religion or a governmentestablished one. Congress also proposed a public day of prayer and thanksgiving after
passing the first amendment, so it would not make sense for Congress to make such a
proposition if they had made a law that prohibited that very activity (Graves). Graves also
pointed out that it seems odd that the Supreme looked to Jeffersons interpretation of the
establisment clause as an authority because as the First Amendment was being passed,
Jefferson was serving as an ambassador to Paris (Graves). It would seem really odd that
they would count on an interpretation of the First Amendment from someone who wasnt
even involved in the creation of the First Amendment to begin with. Graves goes on to
use other past examples where Congress has supported religion and where
misinterpretaitons of the framers original intent was made.
Sarah Posner a writer for TheNation argues that Separation of Church and
State should actually be championed in order to establish a secular government. She is
addressing the issue within the context of the recent case of the government contraception
mandate towards religious groups (Posner). She also interprets the establishment clause
of the constitution to mean that the government cant show favor towards a particular
religion (Posner). Posner argues that religious people use the free exercise clause for

protection whenever they feel they are being discriminated against while ignoring the
establisment clause (Posner). She claims that based on recent polls, there has been more
public support for the Separation of Church and State (Posner). American society has
become heavily secular over the last few decades, so it is very likely that Separation of
Church and State is supported by many in America today, though Sarah argues that there
has been far too much religious influence in the government recently.
As one can tell, by looking at these various points of view and historical
documentation, the current issue of religious freedom is rooted in an intellectual and legal
conflict.

Works Cited
Graves, William D. "Separation of Church and State: Historical Fact or Myth?"
Christian Faith in America. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2015.
Ham, Ken, and Terry Motenson. "Science or the Bible?" Answers in Genesis.
Answers Magazine, 14 June 2007. Web. 29 Jan. 2015.
Posner, Sarah. "Who's Afraid of Secular Government?" TheNation. N.p., 22 June
2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2015.
Powell, Alvin. "The Whys of Religion vs. Evolution." Harvard Gazette. The
Harvard Gazette, 8 May 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2015.