The Free Exercise of Religion in America


The following is a submitted assignment from a class I am taking on the United States Constitution which I thought this audience might appreciate:

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

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 Constitution of the United States,” Amendment 5).

Arguably, and to various degrees, each clause of this amendment has been violated at different points in American history. Freedom of speech is now relegated to approved “zones (Hanna, 2009).” The press has been highly regulated at various points, most notably by the crippled but remerging “fairness doctrine (Almond, 2009).” And groups wishing to assemble to petition their government are required to file for permits which may be rejected arbitrarily (Hanna, 2009).

Perhaps no clause has been more abused and misinterpreted than the “establishment clause,” which restricts Congress from creating a church or restricting the free exercise of religion. Early American history demonstrates a common understanding of this clause which was eventually rejected by the Supreme Court in its landmark Engel v. Vitale decision in 1962, which instigated a shift in the definition of “establishment” from enforcement of a particular religion to the mere mention of anything religious .

Before considering Engel v. Vitale, it is appropriate to consider the context in which the First Amendment along with the whole of the Constitution was written, who wrote it, and what they had to say about it. There may be no better proxy for this investigation than the US Congress, as assembled in 1854 to address objections brought by select plaintiffs against “public religious expressions by legislative chaplains paid for by State budgets (Wallbuilders.org, 2009).” The plaintiffs argued that such religious expressions, funded by government and conducted in a government venue, violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. The resulting House report on the issue found the alleged violation contrived, citing the establishment and perpetuation of legislative chaplains under the tenure of the First Congress, which included many of the very men who framed the First Amendment.

On the 1st day of May [1789], Washington’s first speech was read


RSS feed

5 Comments

If I may move backwards a step...

nycenterright Monday, November 30th at 10:43AM EST (link)

Would you say that a school-required state prayer is unconstitutional if it is not non-denominational?

To clarify, I ask because I don't think there is such a thing as "non-denominational" nt

nycenterright Monday, November 30th at 10:50AM EST (link)
 

That's a red herring...

mschmitt (Diary) Monday, November 30th at 10:54AM EST (link)

… I’ve never heard of any school lining kids up and telling them they must pray to Jesus. On the other hand, I’ve heard of plenty of people (such as you, no doubt) bullying schools into telling kids they can’t bring their Bible to school, can’t freely meet amongst themselves to discuss religion on school grounds, and can’t pray during lunch — all for fear of offending somebody.

What you (and people like you) do is take the constitutional prohibition on the Federal Government from establishing a theocracy, all the way to the illogical conclusion of preventing (supposedly) free people from worshiping the way they please.

I probably wouldn’t support local municipalities establishing an official religion, but I also know that it would not be unconstitutional (in the strictly constructionist sense) for them to do so; since the Constitution does not limit the people or the States in matters of religion (as constructed).

So, take another step back and try again.

usque ad finem

Just a LITTLE paranoid maybe?

nycenterright Monday, November 30th at 4:36PM EST (link)

All right, let me explain the reasoning behind the question. The Supreme Court identified in its ruling two factors which it said were together not sufficient to make school prayer constitutionally acceptable, specifically: The prayer is nondenominational and there is an “opt-out” for students. Walter himself says as much:

“The two key distinctions this decision deals with are denominational endorsement and the voluntary nature of state-sponsored religious exercise.”

Obviously, with two independent factors, there are four options:

1) The prayer is required and denominational. Just about everyone I know would consider this unconstitutional, apparently including you (“I’ve never heard of any school lining kids up and telling them they must pray to Jesus.”)

2) The prayer is not required and is non-denominational, it was this type of prayer that the poster discusses. The Supreme Court declared this type of prayer unconstitutional and the poster obviously disagrees, and does so quite eloquently.

3&4) It is these two which I’m looking at, because they aren’t addressed in depth in the diary as far as I can tell. So the question I was really getting at is how these two fall on his spectrum:

3) The prayer is non-denominational but is required. Constitutional? If not, violation of the first amendment or of some other one? etc, etc.

4) The prayer is denominational, but not required, and this was the one I was asking about. Now, I personally don’t think that there really is such a thing as a non-denominational prayer, I certainly have yet to hear or see one. So it is with that in mind that I asked about his interpretation of that scenario.

If your responses continue to be rude, aggressive, and completely not based in fact, then I will ignore them.

 
 

Not necessarily

Walter Scott Hudson (Diary) Wednesday, December 2nd at 7:33AM EST (link)

I think it is far more relevant whether the prayer is truly “required.”

www.fightinwords.us

Thoughtful, real, and fearless commentary on the news of the week. We cover politics, society, culture, and religion from a traditional conservative perspective, beyond the party lines and simplistic left-right paradigm.

 
 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.