Why do you think the doctrine of separation of church and state has little to do

Why do you think the doctrine of separation of church and state has little to do with maintaining legal neutrality devoid of religion in policy-making, or with diminishing religious influence on government? Note the Christian ceremonial rite in which U.S. Presidents are sworn into office on Inauguration Day by taking their oaths with their hands on two Bible, one is his own, and the other, Abraham Lincoln’s. This is explicitly Christian! If you think that the separation of church and state is a “discriminating principle” in the sense that there is no place for religion in public or political sphere because religion should be discriminated against non-religion or atheism or agnosticism or skepticism, then this cannot happen.
Look at another example. In France, the use of hijab, a Muslim woman’s head-cover, is legally prohibited in public school while hijab is allowed in public school in the U.S. The primary reason for the French law is allegedly security because the police cannot identify how the person is. But it is clear that the French people and government, in general, think that the Islamic religious custom is destroying their ethnic culture and belief which is predominantly secular atheism or agnosticism or skepticism. When asked, many French people believe that the separation of church and state can be a relevant ideal, which means that they believe that the principle can be a discriminating ideal, discriminating any particular religions including Christianity against the secular French beliefs.
Confining to the U.S. context, the phrase, the “separation of church and state” does not exist in our Constitutions. However, we believe that the principle is a summary of the First Amendment, which guarantees an individual’s freedom of religion. Thus, it is not a discriminatory but an embracing principle. Accordingly, all religions should be respected equally. Therefore, any one particular religion cannot be favored over or discriminated against the other in the public or political setting. If so, there are two problems. First, how can we respect all religions when different religions sometimes demand contradictory policies? Second, what is the place of atheism or agnosticism or skepticism? If these are not religions, they cannot be protected under the First Amendment. How do you answer the two problems? Limit the essay in 400 words but no less than 300 words.
Upload your essay in a Word file (no pdf file)
The Grading Rubric
The Grading Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
Descriiption of criterion
view longer descriiption
2 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
/ 2 pts
Descriiption of criterion
view longer descriiption
2 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
/ 2 pts
Descriiption of criterion
view longer descriiption
6 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
/ 6 pts
Total Points: 0
Choose a submission type
Drag a file here, or click to select a file to upload
Drag a file here, or
Choose a file to upload
No file chosen
or