Could someone look over this paper real quick? 900 words. I need to have a thesis, intro, road map, and two points. I really just need someone to point out glaring issues but that's it. I'm going to post it in two halves back to back this is part one Should governments be allowed to restrict freedom of religion? Many think yes, not only to avoid an uprising from the country’s people but also to work together as a nation. If a nation’s government officials are elected based purely on their religious claims, or if they allow mistreatment of people with unique religious beliefs, should it still stand? What seems to us like a natural God-given right doesn’t come freely to all others, however.
To clarify, the United States of America is one of the only examples of countries that protect the religious freedoms of its citizens in history, and the Founding Fathers knew from experience that governmental control over religious affairs of its citizens was too easily abused for personal gain. It was a fundamental requirement for them to create a government that was based on the moral principles of Christianity, the religion of the majority, but allowed all citizens to be free to worship how they saw fit. There are several reasons why a neutral stance on religion should be taken by a government.
First, a state religion encourages a government to coerce behavior in its citizens and usurp power in the name of religion, whereas neutrality protects minorities from discrimination and persecution. Neutrality also allows for freedom of thought beyond basic religious beliefs. Some would argue that neutrality lets citizens feel entitled to rights that they don’t yet have, or that it can split up the nation between religions. Others maintain that, even though it has a chance of causing a political divide, there would be higher risks if neutrality wasn’t in place. For example, if no one was allowed to have freedom of belief the citizens would be frustrated, and while the citizens would have direct conflict with the government, the citizens would agree and protest for each other as they have the same goals. However, a closer look at the issue will reveal that, a government that claims a state religion bases all of its decisions on the tenets of that religion. It favors members of its religion and discriminates against those outside of the state religion. A government that claims a state religion bases all of its decisions on the tenets of that religion. It favors members of its religion and discriminates against those outside of the state religion. Augustine of Assis believed the purpose of government was limited to coercion and punishment, “Augustine’s view, in short, was that government and law exist as a punishment and corrective for sin, a punishment which mankind, through the actions of Adam and Eve, had 2 brought upon itself. Political man is fallen, man.” (Raeder p 57) Augustine believed that there was a minimum agreement of right and wrong between those who were redeemed and those who were still living in a fallen state. That minimum should be maintained by the government through coercion and punishment. But beyond that minimum, Augustine felt that governmental power would only corrupt. If the state wasn’t religiously neutral, then the government elective offices could be corrupted by the power to coerce behavior beyond the minimum consensus. (look for part two)