The First Amendment Part One

by Ramarious 2. March 2010 05:00

Brushfire of Freedom

The Armory

Note: Portions originally published at Brushfire Sparks on March 17, 2009.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first amendment to the Constitution was designed to protect the basic rights of the people of the new country. The Founders felt that if the government was going to truly be of, by, and for the people, then the people should have protection from those who would abuse the power of that government. They understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and they had seen the effect of absolute power in the actions of King George. They knew that if the experiment that was to be this nation were to be a success, they could not set the stage for a reversion to a single focus of power that existed in the British Monarchy. General Washington certified this concept when he rejected the role of American monarch.

The phrasing of the amendment is important not only because it defines the protections, but it sets the tone for the entire Bill of Rights. “Congress shall make no law...” is the opening phrase designed to restrict the power of the legislative branch. It doesn’t grant power to the Judiciary to decide which right or power can or should be given to the people. It is focused specifically on the Legislative branch of the new government, and it restricts their ability to act on certain rights reserved for the people.

The first right enumerated is the one the Founders felt was most important. The original pilgrims had come to this country to escape religious persecution. Their flight was a result of a difference in their religious practice from that of the established government. Thus they abhorred the concept of a state church, as it was the antithesis of the founding of the nation. This clause, commonly referred to as, “The Establishment Clause” is one of the most abused phrases in the Bill of Rights.

Keep in mind that these amendments were designed to restrict the power of the government and preserve the liberties of the people. Yet the Establishment Clause is consistently used under the guise of “separation of church and state” to restrict the religious freedom it was designed to protect. If you put the entire phrase together it state, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”. It does not indicate that the state and religion can not mix, but prevents the legislative branch from creating a state-sponsored religion. That was its purpose, and all other interpretations, including the myth of the separation of church and state, are a misapplication of the amendment and demonstrate a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights. We see these cases continuously in the news, whether it is school prayer, presence of religious material in hospitals, or the use of “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. The reality is that this nation was founded on the principles of rights granted by a Creator, and the only purpose behind the Establishment Clause was to prevent Congress from making laws regulating the worship of that creator.

In fact, the next portion of the amendment, “... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” demonstrates the invalidity of the position taken by those who believe in this mythical separation of church and state. Any law currently in existence in this nation, any court decision made regarding this phrase that prevents the free practice of religion at any location is a violation of the Bill of Rights. This is one of the sacred liberties that has been eroded by the policies of the Neo-Socialists and Liberals of this nation. We have slowly surrendered our right to freely practice our expressions of worship to our Creator, who has granted us the “certain inalienable rights” enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and protected by this Bill of Rights. We’ve done so because a myth has been perpetuated. We’re the proverbial “frogs in the water” and the heat is rising. At some point we may realize that we are about to boil, but will it be too late to leap out of the pot?

Now the health care debate may cross into the realm of the first amendment. There a provisions in each of the bills being debated today that requires individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. That money will then be used to insure others who subscribe to the government program. One of the “benefits” of the government program is use of the insurance for abortions. So, indirectly, your money will be used to pay for abortions for other Americans. Most Catholics (excluding Dems) will tell you that abortion is against their religion. So those Catholics will be forced to pay for abortions, which is against their religious beliefs. Congress will in effect have made a law prohibiting the free exercise of Catholicism, a religion, in violation of this clause of the first amendment.

The first amendment to the Constitution was written to protect the rights of the people against an oppressive government. It has been turned on the very people it was designed to protect and used to slowly steal our right to religious freedom. Sadly, this is not the only case where tools designed to protect our rights have been used to rob us of liberty, but it should be noted that it is the first right identified in the list, and must have been considered of great importance by those who designed our government. The longer we wait, the longer we sit in the pot, the more likely we will lose this precious freedom. It is time we understood the true meaning of the Establishment Clause. It is time we took a stand to protect this primary, basic right of religious freedom. It is time to learn, understand, and act on the Bill of Rights and take back the liberty that has been stolen from the people of this nation. It is time.

Contact Ramarious Brushfire Home

Copyright 2010. The published content is the sole property of the author. Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.

Tags: first amendment, freedom of religion, bill of rights

The Armory

The First Amendment Part Four Brushfire of FreedomThe Armory Note: Originally published on April 7th, 2009 Author&...The First Amendment Part FourBrushfire of FreedomThe Armory“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of relig...The First Amendment Part Four Brushfire of Freedom The Armory Note: Originally published on April 7th, 2009 ...

Comments

Doug Indeap

March 3. 2010 23:56

The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and later learned they were mistaken. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

Some try to pass off the Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court's decision. Indeed, it was only after reaching its conclusion based on a detailed discussion of the historical events leading to the First Amendment that the Court mentioned the letter. The metaphor "separation of church and state" was but a handy catch phrase to describe the upshot of its conclusion. The Court's reading of the First Amendment in this regard was unanimous; all nine Justices agreed on that much, but split 5-4 on whether the Amendment precludes states from paying for transportation of students to religious schools.

Perhaps even more than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court's view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to "[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government." Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., "the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress" and "for the army and navy" and "[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts"), he considered the question whether these actions were "consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom" and responded: "In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."

The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state. I commend it to you. www.adl.org/.../WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf

Ramarious

March 7. 2010 17:58

Doug - No one is calling for the incorporation of religion into our government. However, I do think the pendulum has passed too far to the "establishment" side of the amendment. We've gone from preventing religious persecution through government regulation to using the government to prevent religious expression. My point, "...any court decision made regarding this phrase that prevents the free practice of religion at any location is a violation of the Bill of Rights" notes that in an effort to enact one portion of the amendment we have crossed into violating another. In an effort to maintain the purity of "the State", we have trampled heavily on our right to practice our faiths.

March 7. 2010 18:24

The pendulum has definitely swung too far Ram, but I would argue that in fact religion has already been incorporated into the government. It is a religion of the state, for the state, and by the state. A religion within the guise of the environment, with nanny-state care and control that would have made Stalin blush.

Comments are closed

The First Amendment Part One

RecentPosts

RecentComments