The US First Amendment and Religious Sensibilities

I'm going to open with some observations on the First Amendment to the US Constitution with regards to some folks religious sensibilities.

Recently, the Franklin County, North Carolina Commissioners, in a rare show of legal sensibility, decided to remove any formal prayer from the high school graduation ceremony. (see NBC 17 coverage)  In the ensuing discussions, I found myself face to face with a real NC Tea Party supporter.  I will admit I got fed up too easily and let my frustration show, but it did impel me to start this blog.

The First Amendment states. among other things: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."


It seems simple enough, no particular religion can be preferred by the government as a policy. Not Christianity (in any of its multitude forms), nor Jewishness, nor Islam, nor Hindu, nor paganism, nor atheism, nor any other religion may be preferred.  Furthermore, Article VI requires: "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."  Clearly, the Founders had concerns about the topic.

The history of the state religions of Europe and the rest of the world, as available to the Founders, showed that such entanglements caused discrimination and tyrannical suppression of the out groups and minorities.  They did not want the new nation to fall into a similar trap, nor did they wish to have religions impose or influence the new nation. (Start reading at Wikipedia for a good overview.)

It seems, however, that the intellectually lazy American Christians I was dealing with, think that they deserve a privileged position and that their religion is somehow an exception to the notion.  This brought me up against (once again) the claims of "historian" David Barton (see at Wikipedia for a beginning).  The clueless devotees of Barton's distorted claims of America's Founders' Christianity are falling into the whole religious trap of thoughtlessly accepting the doctrines of their religious leaders.

At this juncture, I must point out that I am not an atheist.  What I am will show up elsewhere, but I carefully accept the label of being a religious person.  My personal religion is informed by reason and a requirement that I be able to defend my positions in a reasoned discussion.  (Unfortunately, I don't suffer fools gladly.  If I lead them to the facts and they can't think for themselves, I'm too likely to make a cutting remark and sign off from the debate.)  I also strive to speak carefully and avoid in initial encounters the trap of stereotyping people by any of the usual categories.

I am actually somewhat sympathetic to the Christian's claims of being suppressed, but in order to not suppress others, one has to accept some constraints on personal behaviour in order to participate in the benefits of society.  One may not slander, incite violence, nor may one shout "fire" in a crowded, non-burning theatre.  One may also not suppress other's religious or non-religious preferment.  The precious American freedoms are not a license to anarchy, and these limits are applied to the government itself as well.  One consequence is that the state, in any of its compelling roles, is not allowed to promote religious practices.

It would be expected, by a reasonable understanding of this principle, that religious institutions are also required to limit their speech accordingly.  The rules that the government applies to the tax-exemptions granted to organized religious institutions carefully follow this principle.  They may speak freely about the issues and doctrines they feel compelled to follow, but to preserve their exemptions, they are not allowed to advocate or direct their adherents to act in a religiously dictated manner.  The state is not allowed to direct that religious practices include required acknowledgements of its power.  (Of course, religious organizations may voluntarily pray for or acknowledge the state or its officers.)

There is a fine balance involved here, and it has lasted fairly intact for 230 years or so.  There are some lapses that have and continue to occur, but so far we are persisting in our experiment.