Today’s Topic: The Establishment Clause and the Freedom Clause
Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America begins as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:"
The Establishment Clause
The first ten words apply specifically to whether it is appropriate to establish a federal government approved religion for the United States. The founders obviously said no, and in no uncertain words that need multiple between the line interpretations layered over by speculation from spurious different interpretations of the Federalist Papers and other documents of the time.
The decision was made that this new type of government was a reach in the first place, and with the knowledge that each of the different colonies already had what could only be called "established religions". However, since the call and duty of the new federal government was to be for the general defense of all the colonies (soon after called "the states"), and for the purpose of trade and foreign relations, religion should hold no sway.
This idea was the reason for the Establishment clause, even with the knowledge that the individual states had religious concentrations that would undoubtedly hold some amount of import to their particular states. In fact, throughout the colonies atrocities occurred or the denial of even the most basic of human rights were withheld from people of different faiths for a couple of hundred years prior to the Establishment clause.
And this is where the Constitution stood up and made a distinct differentiation about what states could and could not do in reference to established religion.
If one looks at the logic it is pretty easy to follow. Virginia was established with a large Anglican population, Massachusetts with Puritans, Pennsylvania with Quakers. If, as a state, they chose to continue with an established religion, and also took it upon themselves to follow the principles of the Constitution by ratification, then intrinsically there could no longer be an established religion because of the Freedom Clause.
The Freedom Clause
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:"
Six little marvelous words that apply specifically only to the preceding Establishment Clause and yet put the entire Constitution into clear and concise terms. For it is not possible to have states establishing religion and yet allow others to practice their own religion without some negative recourse.
The reason is simply this, and it only took us 200 years to figure it out for our black population, but the fact is that once you have a state religion the "devout" will notice those whom did not attend service. Oh, they may well be allowed to attend their own service, but if you notice they aren’t at your "state supported" service, they automatically become segregated. Regardless if they choose to attend their own service or not, or whether they don’t even believe in a service of some religion, they implicitly have been segregated from society.
So the disestablishment of religion ultimately ended up across all the states, for you cannot guarantee freedom to practice religion if you allow those missing from your religion to be counted and taken note of. The consequences of practicing religious freedom do not allow for the establishment of legal segregation, as would be the case under a state religion.
The concept is pretty easy to accept when you realize that the Constitution was written years after the Declaration of Independence, and a war had been fought by pulling together patriots of all stripes to fight a common foe. However, the differences were undoubtedly seen and felt and responded to as pertains to religion between these diverse patriots. No one can actually work with people from another walk of life or some other point of religion without noticing that such differences were present.
But the common foe also brought the commonality of brotherhood to our first army as we all pray to the same God when we’re in foxholes.
These experiences of war, of brotherhood, and of tolerance would logically find their way into the Constitution. And the terminology would be such that each expression of content was the expression of intent.
There appears to be a continued concern over just what the quotes above actually say, or, more specifically, if those words actually could convey intent of the founders to limit the influence of religion over a federal government, and if "free exercise" really meant "to the fullest extent".
My viewpoint is relatively easy to grasp because I’m not trying to read between the lines. But what I’m going to do is answer some of the questions there seem to be continually popping up by virtue of using the plain and simple language of Article 1.
The logic I present above might be perceived as a less informed version in comparison to some of the highbrow discussions that I have heard of late, but one fact negates misinterpretation. That fact is that not only is the idea of segregation bad for religious affiliations, but its downright bad for any American endeavors that favor one side over the other, or causes people to congregate in cadres, protecting their own, betraying those not like them, and generally limiting or negating a path to national "self".
So let us take this just a little further in history and see how religion played a part. Ok, so the founding fathers have already had their say, the states ratified the Constitution, and we have a number of states whose insistence about laws on slavery don’t really sit well within the Constitution. So Congress adopts the Dredd-Scott Resolution and each state can act upon the controversial topic of the right to own slaves as they see fit.
Well, the right to freedom of religion certainly wasn’t seen the same in those days as abolitionist preachers were breaking the law in most of the southern states. And if abolitionist preachers couldn’t preach, then those who believed in abolitionism couldn’t practice their religion freely, whether black or white.
And this brings me to a big point. When a legal entity goes into a contract with another legal entity, or in partnership to create such a legal entity, then the state ratifying the Constitution could not have both free practice of religion and laws against preaching a religion that does not support slavery.
Again, segregation. We can do what WE want, but YOU cannot.
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution was the one definition that clearly stated the necessity of maintaining the union of the states. In my opinion, this is the divining point of the Constitution itself. For if we extrapolate the concept of Establishment and the clearly established Freedom clause, then there are no avenues that allow exclusion as a byproduct. This is as masterful of a stroke in the birth of any government as has ever been made.
But instead of continuing to look at the problem in the macrocosm of the birth of an entire nation, let us take a close look at a more recent investment of our soul as a country. I’m talking about public schools. Now while publicly supported schools are so much of a new thing, and certainly nothing specifically defined as an obligation of the federal government, the application of the 1st Amendment is extremely appropriate in terms of what publicly supported schools can and cannot do, particularly when it comes to the pronouncement and support of an established religion.
Now I know some might ask what the heck segregation has to do if our school populations are reasonably represented in attendance, but the same concepts prevail. The problem is that the original concerns of desegregating our schools only answered the question of race attendance, thereby leaving us to abide by other rules when it comes to religion.
And in a microcosm such as a local public school, it is not possible to allow the expression of religious freedoms without dividing the students into camps of "with us or against us" mentality. For instance, whilst it may well be a possibility that a normal morning "prayer" could fulfill most Christian requirements, certainly it has nothing to do with Jewish children attending public school. And if one is actually to be allowed true freedom of expression of their religion in school, then, at the least Muslim children would have to disrupt class in order to kneel towards Mecca and pray the three times during the day they are required during the time that school is in session.
So let’s say that we set aside some space where these Muslim students can go pray without disrupting classes. Do you believe that other students wouldn’t notice? Do you think that there would be some major source of backlash against a group of children that segregate themselves away from the rest? Are they actually doing something against us secretly and being supported by their religious freedom to segregate themselves from us?
And this is the point. No person should have to recognize a specific religion against their will nor suffer the consequences for choosing not to abide by another’s religion, but also that the personal practice of religious freedom can not segregate you from me or whites from blacks or Christians from Muslims.
It is no wonder that the founders decided the Establishment and Freedom Clauses were so important that they were the first sixteen words in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution established the government and what it could do. The Bill of Rights established what the government could not do to the citizens (along with the fact that the Constitution could be amended for just such cases). And it all comes down to not allowing the establishment of any particular ideology or religious viewpoints that then negate any other’s viewpoints from the conversation.
Otherwise, why have the rest of the 1st Amendment, which defines the freedoms of assembly, free speech and the press, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?
11:45:12 AM 
|
