HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 11, 2003 It’s June! Ah…. The lovely time of year when young graduates wish their comrades farewell, and look off to a bright future… AND the ACLU sharpens their daggers and looks around wildly in attempts to stop anyone from inclining their head, bowing a knee, or anything that even resembles saying a prayer in a public school. I know that by expressing the following thoughts, I open myself up to a deluge of hateful flame- email (that’s what filters are for…), but please bear with me. Also, for the record, I do not claim to be wiser, holier, or in any way more intelligent than the Supreme Court, but please keep in mind that the Court, while learned, is essentially a political organ, and often the decisions rendered reflect more of a personal political standing than any adherence to the Constitution (ex. The Dred Scott case)… The whole basis of the current complete ban on school prayer, Christmas celebrations that go beyond the jolly fat guy in the red suit, and the like is the First Amendment Clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The interpretation that rules the day is that the above = you can’t mix the government with religion. However, a simple reading tells almost the opposite of what is happening today. The traditional separationist argument is that by “establishment,” the framers of the Constitution were not only prohibiting the government from ordering (and controlling) an official state church (thus, making America only one of a relative handful of countries to not have an official religion), but also but the establishment of any religious belief or practice by law. Thus they argue if the religion is “forced” into an official government activity, it’s in violation of the spirit of the amendment. Despite the fact that this is the thinking that currently rules the country, I would humbly suggest that the "logic" usually invoked falls down on three points. #1: That’s not what it says! I’m truly amazed that the simple phrase has been so successfully twisted to meet what seems to be the opposite of the original intent. When the clause states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..” doesn’t that seem to you to indicate that the federal government does not actually have the power to place restrictions on religious belief? “Establishment” can mean 1) arranging/starting an order or system (in the sense of Congress creating a church- which everyone will usually agree is right out); OR 2) an established social order/a controlling group in a given field of activity (such as an existing church???). Thus if you read the second definition in mind, you will get the idea that Congress can pass no laws to regulate a(n established) church. So what exactly are we doing? By ruling that you can pray here (church), but not there (school, govt. office, etc.), the government is regulating religion. It seems that should be illegal. Furthermore this seems to be “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” #2: Our history does not support it. Every time this issues is raised, it seems some well-meaning journalist or commentator declares that the Founding Fathers obviously intended the current interpretation taking lessons from some of the more disastrous histories of mixing church and state in Europe. The problem with this view is that America was not settled by people fleeing the Roman Catholic Church’s meddling in affairs of state, but quite the opposite. They were fleeing oppressive governments who were telling them what church to go to, what they could and could not believe, and where they could and could not pray. I think most of this country’s founders views are quite clear in their frequent invocations to God while making policy. If the current nay-sayers had ruled back then, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence would have been sent back as the first line seems to indicate the existence of a creator, which is just not proper in a government document. America has historically celebrated its faith openly, but the law exists to protect that faith (as well as others), not to regulate it. #3- I feel so uncomfortable…. The standard opening of complaint which leads to lawsuit against school districts is always the same: “I felt so uncomfortable when everyone began praying to an entity that I don’t believe in…” They proceed to the mind-boggling conclusion that his/her civil-rights were violated by these dastardly people who had the nerve to pray in public. I grew up as a religious minority (Christian in small-town Utah). I can say that as I grew up, I frequently found myself in the midst of people invoking the name of a god who is not my own. Did I feel uncomfortable? No… Actually, I was more amused, if anything. Regardless, does the constitution guarantee us the right to comfort? If so, I’m really missing out. The Constitution DOES guarantee us freedom to practice religion. If you don’t believe in prayer yet find yourself in the midst of one, hum, sing, think of old jokes, practice convincing yourself of the liberal mantras that Clinton was unfairly abused by a hostile congress or that Bush really didn’t win the election, but please don’t try to abridge the (should be) constitutionally protected right of the people around you to worship in the manner they see fit. ------------ Email Clay H. Williams: klei1842@hotmail.com Comment on this column in the forum. ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
