The United States does not have an official religion and the first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," yet religion is often used in making laws, choosing candidates, political issues, etc. What are your thoughts about this? Is it ok? Problematic?

 

Since the United States relies on religion to perform important duties such as making laws, choosing candidates and solving political issues, it is important to have a statute that fully recognizes and respects its existence. In the excerpts, it is clear that the Congress is not interested in protecting and respecting religion. One can ask, "why should you use an establishment you do not protect and respect to accomplish your missions? It is ironical that the Congress still seeks the help of an establishment it does not protect to accomplish its goals. According to the categorical imperative of Emmanuel Kant, the Congress uses religion as a means to an end (Martin, 2013). Thus, religious leaders will consider the Congress as an entity that misuses them for malicious benefits without having regard to the true identity of religion as an establishment that helps it accomplish different missions.

There are different types of religions in the United States, which might be a reason for not identifying with a particular religion as it is the case with Arab countries that are fully inclined to Islamic religion. Perhaps, the congress took its stand to remain neutral and prevent conflict of interest. However, implementing a law that protects religion as an establishment that help the State accomplish different duties is essential and a sign of respect. Thus, the Congress should consider amending a law that respects religion as away of appreciating its contributions to the realization of State functions.