On the one hand, the Establishment Clause is focused on the actions of government institutions and employees. If, for example, a public school teacher tells a student in class that Christianity is the only true religion, this teacher has violated the Establishment Clause because the government (which the teacher represents when acting in his or her capacity as a government employee) is prohibited from endorsing religious beliefs or practices. On the other hand, the Free Exercise Clause is focused on private citizens and their religious associations. For example, the government would violate the free exercise rights of Muslims if it sought to discourage the practice of Islam, whether by regulating licensure for imams, creating especially strict zoning laws for mosques, refusing to allow Muslim religious practices in prisons, or by any other …show more content…
I believe we will be better the way we are. No change needed. The first amendment states it and proves it that we have the freedom to practice any religion we chose to. The opposition is that we change and become more diverse and make the church and state become one and change the whole first amendment. Which is wrong and i believe that it would cause to much problems and bring us down from bring the number one country in the world.
In conclusion i stated that the separation of church and state should stay the way it is. And we should stay divase but to a certain extent. I believe that that is the right move and that we should not change anything. The opposing argument was that we become more diverse than we already forget the first amendment and the two clauses it stated and become one huge union. This will cause dramatic terror and consequence to us