Since before the establishment of the United States of America, state endorsement of religion was a point of contention. The progression of the American Revolution led to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson creating the Establishment Clause. Jefferson thought a state supporting a particular religion was improper, citing they needed a, “wall of separation between church and state.” Over the years the Supreme Court gradually defined the public as secular with cases such as Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and Agostini v. Felton (1997) which prohibited government “entanglements with religion.” 

Today, religion specifically Christianity is tightly wound with American politics. One group who is leading the charge for the country’s religious discussions are the conservative right, who strive to enact agendas that fit within the religious values. Some leaders of conservative congregations across America are financially supported for endorsing Republican candidates. For example, Rev. Rob Schenck who up until 2019 received millions of dollars for supporting President Donald Trump throughout both his presidential campaigns. Jerry Falwell Jr., the former president of Liberty University supported President Trump so that he could cover up his wife’s affair. In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that corporations can reject services such as healthcare because they do not want their employees using birth control because it conflicts with their views.

I think we need less religious involvement in government affairs and more empathy and understanding for each other’s positions. Religious involvement in government can lead to the manipulation of congregations for the monetary gain of the reverend or pastor. These positions wield great power especially because many of their church followers trust them wholeheartedly. Many of them will gladly vote for whoever their leader tells them. Payment for endorsing a candidate should not be allowed in our political system.

Due to the ideological differences between conservatives and liberals there is not much civil communication between the groups. Conservatives feel disenfranchised by the steady social change that has been occurring in the past few years. Most individuals on the left, consider their views outdated and bigoted. This schism between the groups has further divided them due to the 2016 election. Rather than engaging in civil discourse to come up with solutions about social or political issues, each group strives to demonize the other. A common approach when debating on social media is, “care about the facts, not the feelings.” The mantra gives an “objective” look at a complex issue. I do not find it to be an effective way of communicating because personal values (or feelings) inform the way we think about facts. For example, a community in the Bible Belt has a high teen pregnancy rate. The conservatives could use this information and enact abstinence only education in schools, while the liberals could enact education on contraceptives and other preventative measures. The fact remains true, but the resolution to the issue is different. In the future, people should educate themselves on the social issues that they are for or against. We should try to understand a person’s position before attacking them.