Outline Research Paper Eng12 5f4f3j

I. INTRODUCTION: (This can be more than One Paragraph but will probably be just One.) A. Attention Getter: (Think about a quote, interesting tidbit, statistic, or day in history about your Topic.) ● Some people wake up every day following the beliefs of others and jumping through hoops to just live a normal life without being persecuted, jailed, or killed. *quote modern essay* B. Set Up: (Think about how to BRIEFLY INTRODUCE your Topic. Just a few key facts or statistics that gives your reader a HINT about its importance. Two to Three Sentences.) ● Luckily, here in America, we have the privilege to wake up every day with the freedom to exercise or not exercise any religion we choose because of our constitution’s declaration of separation of church and state; however, some Americans dispute the idea that America should prohibit the union of church and state. C. THESIS: (This is where you take your Inquiry Question and make it a ONE SENTENCE STATEMENT regarding your Topic.) ● Because of the new president and numerous social movements, America is in turmoil about many social issues including whether or not the separation of church and state represents what a majority of americans want and what is best for the well being of all american citizens regardless of their viewpoint. II. BODY OF PAPER: (This will be several Paragraphs because this Paper is Five to Seven Pages.) A. Section One: Beginning History/Cause (Could be several paragraphs.) 1. Where? England/America 2. When? 1765-1783 aka around the american revolution 3. How? Many left England during what is called The Great Migration during 1620-1640 a few years after the first pilgrimage to America. During this, they set up the 13 colonies, and eventually fought for independence from England who wanted to impose the exact rules that everyone wanted to escape from as well as ridiculous taxation without representation in the English government. Eventually the Founding Fathers had to construct a constitution after America won independence from England, and this is where our first amendment with the freedom to exercise any religion comes from as well as the clause in a letter from one of the founding fathers, “*insert wall of separation of church and state*” whose intention has been interpreted and reinterpreted many times over the years as views change. 4. Who? At first it was the Pilgrims which included Anglicans, Baptists, and church separationists, and then it expanded to thousands of English people. Thomas Jefferson is the main founding father to be credited with the separation of church and state declaration, but James Madison and John Locke also explicitly fought for this principle (ProCon.org). 5. Why? Many left england to find a place where no matter their religion (and other discriminatory reasons that were rankings of status in england), everyone could have an equal chance to prosper.

● “causes all religious groups to be seen and treated equally in the eyes of that law-or, as Jefferson put it, has the effect of 'putting all on equal footing” ProCon.org a. (Source Information for All/Each: Author or “Article Name”) B. Section Two: Progression through History/Effect (Several paragraphs) 1. Development (negative or positive)? ● Went from ing the union to overruling and going for separation toward the end of the nineteenth century (Green), but obviously there’s always two sides, as evidence of this political cartoon from 1870 that opposed the new trend of separating church and state. 2. Changes (negative or positive)? 3. Involvement by other Individuals or Groups? ● Thomas Jefferson got involved early on to oppose the union of the two which is clearly expressed when writing to the Danbury Baptists, leaders in the movement toward a union of church and state. 4. Other Effects from Topic a. (Source Information for All/Each: Author or “Article Name”) ● Finally the founding fathers constructed the first amendment *insert* which is really another part of the debate today, whether or not by freedom of religion, they meant no religion may govern they state. And maybe Madison, Adams, and Jefferson were on to something. They saw what happened in england and maybe foresaw it would happen again, like in muslim nations, but the other side believed that all could be equal as evident by the diversity of races in the political cartoon. ● Transition using JFK and Mitt Romney Speeches & ProCon Everson vs Board of Edu ( In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'") & Jeffere and Wallace

C. Section Three: Problem (Several paragraphs) 1. What are its present concerns? ● *Danbury baptist quote* people don’t think it can be used to interpret the constitution even thought Jefferson was one of the writers and his intentions are a part of what’s being analyzed for meaning. 2. Who is presently involved in these concerns? ● Currently it’s turning into a democrat and republican debate since president trump is in office and clearly s the union of church and state. ○ Trump: “In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, billionaire Donald Trump suggested he would ignore the First Amendment tenets of separation of church and state and favor Christians over all other people. ‘The Christians are being treated horribly because we have nobody to represent the Christians,’

Trump told CBN's David Brody. ‘Believe me, if I run and I win, I will be the greatest representative of the Christians they've had in a long time.’”

■

link

3. What are its Pros? Who believes this side? ● *insert modern political cartoon* ● Many organizations fighting it as well as a rabbi who was a US ambassador for international religious matters. ○ Brings up LBGTQ & muslim ban ○ Lots of religious organizations & advocate organizations (link to list) 4. What are its Cons? Who believes this side? ● Again, Mitt Romney, then Trump (“muslim ban”, LGBTQ, destroying the Johnson Ammendment saying churches cannot financially aid a political candidate or party if they want to stay tax exempt.) a. (Source Information for All/Each: Author or “Article Name”) 2 D. Section Four: Interview (Can be One Paragraph or Scattered throughout) (To be listed here but incorporated in a paragraph in your Paper.) 1. If I were to say our nation separates church and state, what do you imagine that entails? What if I said our nation was founded on religion? What would that entail? What about freedom of religion? What does that entail in your interpretation? ○ Should entail everyone being free to have and practice their own religion, but they can't in anyway use that religion to deny others or require things of others ○ Founded on religion? Wrong, it was not, it was founded on the idea that everyone can worship as they choose. Proof on money and the pledge we're not added until the 1950s and are not proof that we were founded on religion and it was added because communism was thought to be religionless 1. Do you believe the Constitution lays foundation for or can be interpreted as favoring the separation of church and state in some respect? ○ Yes, it lays the foundation. It's the thing the founding fathers most wanting. Opposite of protecting the churches, the wanted people to have the choice. 2. Have you heard of Jefferson and other founding fathers using the quote “a wall of separation between church and state”? If so, do you think their intentions were to apply it to the Constitution/America? ○ Why/why not ○ Yes, the intention is that govt is govt and religion is religion and when you mix the two you don't have. A Plural society and one group gains power over another. 3. What is your opinion on having religion intermixed in state when it comes to historical things like the “one nation under God” line in the pledge of allegiance or on our money?

○ Is it too much or justified? ○ I wish they weren't there, but leave them alone. They were a political reaction to communism. At the time it was just a control idea. It's nice that god is ambiguous but if we flipped that to Allah, another word for god, imagine the reaction. 4. Do you think that it matters what the founding fathers meant by their thoughts regarding the separation between church and state, or should we define it by the of our modern times? ○ Follow up: Why or why not ○ I think that it matters, but the founding fathers wanted the founding fathers wanted the constitution to be fluid. The ability to amend it shows how they wanted us to grow and change, and not get too rooted in tradition that's unquestioned and unchallenged. They wanted the document to grow with our country. E. Section Five: Solution (More than One) 1. First Solution: Mix “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.” ProCon Everso vs Board of Edu

With more advocation for everywhere allowing free exercise of religion, and a stop to the nit picking. Let people pray individually and such. Let there be billboards or a religious text somewhere. NBD. 2. Second Solution: let church be a part of state if the people so choose. Let rules involving religion be voted upon and maybe even leave it to the state level government so the people really could vote on it. The first amendment nowhere creates a separation of church and state, only protects religious exercise from the law 3. Third Solution (if applicable) Secularism, no exceptions, no church and state, people just have freedom to exercise religion, nothing in the state can have an argument that it's against religion in order to discriminate against anyone else or make this or that a law a. Source Information (Author, Interviewee, “Article Name”) III. CONCLUSION: (Can be a couple of Paragraphs but will probably be just One.) A. Futuristic Look at Topic If we have a mix, and avoid having a declared religion, the future will be more peaceful because opinions change overtime so why lock everyone into one opinion when you can just have the freedom to choose and exercise your choice whatever it may be without worrying about condemnation or discrimination.

B. Food for Thought What if you woke up in a nation where you must follow the rules of a religion you didn't believe? What if someone got the job at the ice cream parlor because they're Jewish and you're atheist? What if you were arrested because you didn't follow a religious text exactly? What if someone didn't allow you to pray when you needed to the most? Or let you follow your religion’s guidelines because you were in public? Where do you lie on the issue of church and state?