Is State, Citizenry, and Leader Neutrality ,in Religious Matters, Necessary?

Whether states, citizens, and leaders need to be neutral about religious affairs. Since the emergence of civilization, the dichotomy between state and religion was at the forefront of society. As we know today, the common ideology of the US government is that the state remains neutral to its leaders, laws, and citizens' normal values, religious beliefs, and / or lifestyle It shows that there is. Leaders may hold personal ethics faithful to a particular religion, but there is no need to abandon their religious beliefs in order to build a "neutral" society.

An important part of the American colony and later the American government is the separation of the church and the state, which means that no religious leader can make a decision of governance for the citizen. There are no religious leaders with political authority over American citizens - neither collective nor personal nor religious institutions recognized as "national churches". For the Supreme Court and prudent attorneys, in most cases, this will ensure that believers of all religions and all faiths are protected in most cases. The lawyer himself, Thomas Jefferson accepted that challenge and persuaded the other founder of the United States to establish a country that accepts all traditions of faith.

Thomas Jefferson's "Pursuit of Life, Freedom and Happiness" (Maqasid al Sharia) (Islamic law)

In short, the United States is not an official Christian nation, it is not intended to support the public religion. Our government is neutral to religious problems and leaves these decisions to individuals. This democratic and pluralistic system can ensure that a wide range of religious groups develop and prosper and all Americans have the right to decide their spiritual path or the complete rejection of religion I will. Because of this policy, Americans enjoy more religious freedom than anyone in world history. We are proud of this accomplishment and we should try hard in order to preserve the constitutional principle of separating the church from the nation.

The key to discussing the impact of public policy on religious organizations is an important difference in neutrality. In terms of religion (and race, sexual orientation, physical condition, age, etc.), free countries should remain neutral. However, as Charles Lamore pointed out in the "Ethical Complexity Model" (1987: 42ff), neutrality has different emotions, and in a sense there are also policies that work well in other ways. It is very bad. In a sense, neutrality can be understood in a reasonable procedure without relying on the concept of human interests. In this sense it is wrong to arrange citizen groups where the state is in an unfavorable position, at least for the sake of their own nation or for those who are unfairly or politically unpopular, otherwise unfair or politically unpopular. Therefore, in this sense (and wrongly) the state simply infringes upon Allah's worship, which will infringe neutrality.