Freedom OF and FROM Religion
by David M.
Fitzpatrick
Last updated
Sunday, 26 February 2006
The Basis for "Freedom OF and FROM"
Religon
The Constitution clearly says that
Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It has been argued by
religious types, mostly the Xians who feel this country is an
Xians-only club, that that indicates a right to choose and practice ANY
religion one sees fit... but that it does NOT mean that those who don't
believe have the same religious freedom. On the contrary! The prohibition of
the government establishing a religion is to ensure that nobody has another
person's religious beliefs forced on him.
And that is what the legal battle for
Atheists is all about. By allowing IN GOD WE TRUST to be on our money, in
adding UNDER GOD to our country's
Pledge of Allegiance to our flag, the
government is establishing the Xian religion—and that is one thousand
percent WRONG. (Read "A Truly Ignorant Christian
Email" for more insight into these specific topics.)
Trying to establish a state religion, even
in a sideways manner like that, is contrary to one of the basic tenets of
the Constitution. By recognizing a particular religion, all those who follow
different religions—or, like Atheists, no religion at all--are being
excluded.
Where Are the Court Rulings to
Support "Freedom FROM"?
A non-religious friend of mine recently
asked me where he could find court rulings and other official decisions that
supports freedom FROM religion, since those words aren't in the First
Amendment. My response was that regardless of other legal proceedings, court
decisions, etc., the only thing that ultimately matters is the Constitution.
The First Amendment reads "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." Two points are key here in this, what is known as the
"Establishment Clause," which is by far it is the most ignored law in the
history of the country. Those points are very simple, and there is no
ambiguity in what it means:
- Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion. Not "A" religion. Not "THE" religion.
Not "SOME TYPE OF" religion. Just plain "RELIGION." Congress is expressly disallowed making ANY laws concerning the
establishment of RELIGION in any form. What does "establishment of religion"
mean? It means officially supporting or promoting ANY religion. I realize
many will disagree on that interpretation, but it is truly the only common
sense interpretation for that clause. Congress and the government is
supposed to keep their hands out of it; by not making any religion-related
laws, no religion of any sort is promoted.
- ...or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. This was to ensure that those who wished to practice a
particular religion would not be prevented from doing so, something many of
the founders were concerned about. Many of them had been forced to practice
a religion not their own and disallowed practicing their own.
Those two points are together in one
sentence, and they balance each other very nicely. Congress can't stop
someone from practicing a religion, and they can't make laws promoting one
either. This is the very foundation of the "freedom OF and FROM religion"
argument: people can practice what they want, and the government stays out
of all things religion.
Why Court Decisions Don't Matter
Congress is prohibited from making any laws
establishing any religion. This is why court decisions and federal
precedents don't matter—after
all, they unanimously voted to add "under God" to the Pledge in the 1950s
DESPITE the fact that that very act by them was illegal, as spelled out in
the Constitution.
For more, see the
Separation of State and Church essay. |
