RELIGION, POLITIES AND SOCIETIES

INTRODUCTION

1 / For the last century there has been strong controversy about the separation of government and religion.

2 / Religion in the United States is remarkable compared to other developed countries. The First
Amendment to the country's Constitution prevents the government from having any authority in religion,
and guarantees the free exercise of religion. A majority of Americans report that religion plays a "very
important" role in their lives.

3 / In theory there is a wall of separation between state and church but in fact religion seems to be present in
society (I) and political life (II).

RELIGION IN SOCIETY

1 / According to the Bill of Rights, Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise.

2 / Nowadays there are still many institutions greatly influenced by Church, this is exemplified by the
religiously related language used in courts and in congress, even inspiring several laws regarding
homosexuals. Recent cases ruled by the Supreme Court change the state of religion to the US.

3/In 2017, in the Lutheran Church case, the supreme court ruled that refusing to finance the playground of
the church was discrimination against religion in sprite of the wall of separation. This, the state of Missouri
had to grant the funds the Lutheran Church have applied for.

4/ In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake
for a gay couple for religious reasons. The Supreme Court ruled that the Masterpiece cake shop was allowed
to refuse to make and sell a wedding cake to a homosexual couple because the free exercise clause prevails
over the law Colorado protects against discrimination.

5 / The separation is still controversial. Although the separation of church and state is grounded firmly in the
constitution of the United States, this does not mean that there is no religious dimension in the political
society and judiciary system.

Page 1 sur 3
RELIGION IN POLITICAL LIFE

1 / American evangelicals had long steered clear of politics, but today that is no longer so.

2 / To illustrate this point, we have the Donald Trump’s campaign speeches given at Liberty University in
which he defends Christianity. In this specific speech, his main goal was to campaign for the evangelical
voters.

3 / Mr. Trump is using texts that the evangelical Christians is based, especially. To make the impression that
him also seem part of their culture or make it seem like they share the same views. Again, this is where
Trump attempted to use religion to appeal more to the evangelicals in the audience.

4/ Personally, I believe this speech wasn’t that well interpreted, but overall a good attention getter. I believe,
Mr. Trump’s main goal in this was to campaign for the evangelical voters, which was exactly what he did.

5 / He started it off by saying he was going to save their culture, which immediately would catch their
interest. Then he continued the speech by referencing bible verses, which, of course, they were very familiar
with. This speech definitely had many flaws, but also so many crucial details that made it successful. This is
why white evangelical support for Mr. Trump exceeded 80 percent in the 2016 election.

6 / This speech is a great example of the influence of the religion in political life. Mr. Trump uses it to his
advantage in keeping his audience.

CONCLUSION

1 / In conclusion we have to take into account that by letting Church become a part of the government we run
a great risk, that’s discriminating a plausible minority that does not practice and believe in the same religion
that the rest of the population. Therefore this group won't feel represented. Which would be ironic bearing in
mind that the American nation was built by the contribution of a group of people, escaping from religious
persecution and without them the US would have been completely different.

2 / Does religion play a positive role in modern society? With substantial evidence and strong arguments,
peoples use religion to validate their malicious actions and utilise religion as an agent of power to push an
agenda, that is often not for the greater good of society.

Page 2 sur 3
1 /Affirmative action grant certain groups preferential treatment over others. Affirmative action aimed to
integrate minorities into society until 1978 it was based on a quota system which was rule unconstitutional in
the Bakke case. However the Supreme Court argued that race could be a factor taken into account among
other factors.

2 / In Plessy v. Ferguson the Supreme upheld one of these laws thus establishment the separate but equal
doctrine which lasted until 1954 with the Brown v. Broad of education. In Brown v. Board of Education
decision, racial segregation was declared inherently and unjustly discriminatory, a violation of the
constitutional right to equal protection. In 1964 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act which banned all forms
of racial discrimination. Affirmative action policies are often justified on the basis that it is a form of
“compensatory justice” that grants equal opportunities to races that faced past injustices.

First, I believe Affirmative Action should be illegal, because it is an unfair judgment that ignores other forms
of discrimination in the application process.

Affirmative action policies should not be permitted in universities applications because they place unfair
assessment to many applicants. When affirmative action is used as a form of compensatory justice, it
overshadows other factors that can cause an individual to be wronged, such as discrimination and loss of
opportunities from appearance, physical and mental health. The assessments do not represent each
individual’s situation, therefore, it is a cause of reverse racism.

—> Avis : I believe it is never justified for universities to give preferential treatment to certain groups
because it is an act of reverse racism that imperfectly measures an applicant’s situation, which in turn, causes
an unjust opportunity gap between members of different groups and of the same group. This causes a biased
imbalance between qualifying applicants of a given group, indicating that it does not properly follow the luck
egalitarian principle.

Second, the current state of affirmative action does not properly follow the luck egalitarian principle. People
that belong to the same minority can have varying degrees of bad luck. It is unreasonable to give everyone
the equal ‘leg up’ because the luck egalitarian principle requires the more unfortunate ones in a given group
to be given a greater ‘leg up’ than the less fortunate individuals from the same group. If one wanted to
provide a fair assessment of bad luck, it should not be one that is focused on race or culture, but one that is
focused on the situation.

—> Avis : I do acknowledge and agree that it is fair if applications can have ‘weights’ designed to analyze
the exact situation of each applicant and grant preferential treatment to a minority that has suffered from bad
luck. However, the current affirmative action policies in universities do not make any effort to ensure a fair
assessment of the situation.

In conclusion, affirmative action needs to be reconsidered. As we can see, the bottom remains that
affirmative action is racist itself; and all parts of it should be abolished. Also, it is just like giving extra point
for being a minority. No matter where people are from or what gender they are, all of them should be treated
equally. There should be where people judge an individual’s performance based on his or her ability; and not
on skin color, race, or gender.

Page 3 sur 3