We Need a New Amendment
There is a huge difference between establishing a religion and endorsing one. They mean two entirely different things and only one of them is forbidden by the First Amendment.
Robinette, of Pembroke, is retired from Virginia Tech.
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” There is no more to the First Amendment; this is all it says.
When I was in the third grade, my teacher had a short devotion every day and at the end we were required to say “The Lord’s Prayer” while she walked around the room checking to make sure we were saying the prayer. If we were not, we had to stay inside during recess, which for a third-grader was cruel and unusual punishment.
In 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that forcing students to take part in religious activities was unconstitutional. That was it; nothing more, nothing less.
Over the years, certain courts and groups have altered and distorted both the First Amendment and the 1962 court ruling to forbid any so-called government mention of religion, especially Christianity.
Recently in The Roanoke Times, I have read the following: “There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion and student speech endorsing religion” (”Religious displays permitted,” March 12 news story); “The U.S. Constitution prohibits government from endorsing a particular religion, the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation said in opposing the Giles County displays” (”Groups agree on students’ rights,” Feb. 26 news story); “The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which calls for separation between government and religion” (”Students in Giles stand up for Ten Commandments,” March 8 news story).
None of the above is in the First Amendment. I do see where this is in the minds of certain people and groups and in the minds of some judges.
The First Amendment forbids the establishment of religion. Established religion means that the state government sets up an official religion that the people are required to join and support, in some cases with a mandatory tithe.
The First Amendment does not forbid government employees from saying prayers at public functions, ball games, etc., nor does it forbid posting the Ten Commandments. Nor does it even forbid government employees from endorsing religion.
There is a huge difference between establishing a religion and endorsing one. They mean two entirely different things and only one of them is forbidden by the First Amendment.
In the 1962 Supreme Court ruling, only forced or coerced religious activities were forbidden.
No one is forced to bow their head and pray at a ball game or PTA meeting. No one forced Giles County students to read, memorize or take a quiz or test on the Ten Commandments.
Those who like to whine that “I’ve got to hear stuff I don’t believe in” get no sympathy from me. I was a student in another country and Islamic activities on campus did not bother me at all. I was tolerant of them even though I am a Christian, and was not hurt or altered by them.
Over the years, there has been a lot of distortion and misunderstanding about the First Amendment’s position on religion, and I think it is time to clear it up. So I am proposing and will ask my congressman to propose a 28th Amendment to the Constitution that defines what establishment of religion originally meant.
Also in the new amendment it should be stated in simple English that what is not forbidden is permitted.
This will get things back to the original intent, and if it is written so that there is no need for interpretation, then courts, lawyers, antireligious groups and others who want to undermine the foundation on which this country is based would have no legitimate argument against expression of religion in a public venue.
Recent Comments
