Religious diversity has been an ongoing trend in America and has gradually increased the tensions between religion and politics. Debates about the relationship between church and state had led to a nation that is divided by God. Noah Feldman’s Divided by God split society into two distinct categories of citizens with different ideals on how we can maintain unity and diversity. He states how Secularists are those who see religion as a private affair that should be kept of the government. Whereas, Evangelicals, believe in the importance of intersecting religious beliefs in political decisions. Although, both ideas contradict one another on the relationship between church and state, Feldman proposed an ideal middle road that finds common ground
…show more content…
They both come to distinct solutions of the same problem and have different perspectives on what is hurdling society from reaching common ground. Secularist believe separating religion from the public and political agendas. Essentially, they do not want our different faiths and beliefs to affect our political life. Feldman argues that this is impossible, majority of Americans base their political beliefs on their religious values. Our religion serves as an unconscious advisory in handling political decisions with morality issues. For politicians to explain their stance on abortion, they would need a set of values. If they assent to the fact that conception is either the beginning life or its not, they shouldn’t be barred from using their faith as their reasons. Feldman states that many religious believers would either choose to not participate or demand a change because they would be unable to rightfully justify their position. (Feldman, p.225). The problem for legal Secularism is that their solution would send a message of exclusion, rather than acknowledge our different faiths they would overlook an important fundamental beliefs in Americans daily life. Feldman proposes that instead of separating religion from the government we put a stricter ban on government funds to religious organizations and events allow for religious symbolisms. This would be one way in creating a compromise between Evangelicals and
They both come to distinct solutions of the same problem and have different perspectives on what is hurdling society from reaching common ground. Secularist believe separating religion from the public and political agendas. Essentially, they do not want our different faiths and beliefs to affect our political life. Feldman argues that this is impossible, majority of Americans base their political beliefs on their religious values. Our religion serves as an unconscious advisory in handling political decisions with morality issues. For politicians to explain their stance on abortion, they would need a set of values. If they assent to the fact that conception is either the beginning life or its not, they shouldn’t be barred from using their faith as their reasons. Feldman states that many religious believers would either choose to not participate or demand a change because they would be unable to rightfully justify their position. (Feldman, p.225). The problem for legal Secularism is that their solution would send a message of exclusion, rather than acknowledge our different faiths they would overlook an important fundamental beliefs in Americans daily life. Feldman proposes that instead of separating religion from the government we put a stricter ban on government funds to religious organizations and events allow for religious symbolisms. This would be one way in creating a compromise between Evangelicals and