As we all know, the First Amendment of the Constitution covers, among other things, religion. The reference has two parts, which are commonly known as the Establishment Clause and the Exercise Clause.
The Establishment Clause is the part that tells us that the government may not engage in anything that "establishes" religion, and the Exercise Clause states that the government may not do anything which would prohibit the free exercise of religion by citizens.
Many people feel that these two parts are often in conflict. Take the subject of prayer in public schools, for example. The people in a community may be overwhelmingly in favor of such a thing, and they feel the Exercise Clause guarantees them the right to express their religion in this fashion. But the Establishment Clause says otherwise. Since public schools are funded by the government, this would be a case of the government establishing religion.
It ultimately comes down to a question of which clause takes precedence. Personally, I think this is a no-brainer, and find it frustrating that the general public doesn't seem to see it the same way.
I think when you're unsure of something, you should rely on common sense. (Yes, I know it's anything but common, but still…) In this case, prayer in public schools is quite obviously a bad idea. The question of which particular prayer to be spoken would certainly come up. Every child in the school will not have the same religious beliefs, and any prayer is going to sit uncomfortably with some of them. Chances are there are unbelievers in every school, and obviously any kind of prayer, even a non-sectarian one, will bother them. Is it right to offend some kids just to make the community adults feel good? Not only does this not make sense, but it's rude, too.
Of course, many theists don't see it this way. They feel it's their moral responsibility to inflict religion upon innocent children, even if the children aren't their own. It never occurs to them that such things are far more appropriate to their homes and houses of worship, not schools, and the responsibility lies with the individual families, not the local zealots.
But I digress. This isn't about school prayer, it's about freedom of religion.
You see, people refer to the Exercise Clause as providing freedom of religion. Freedom to express their religion any way they please. They would insist that government (including the areas of law) have nothing to do with their worship.
The problems with this are obvious. There are many religions out there, and quite a few of them engage in dangerous practices. Withholding medical care from a sick child, for example. To many, this is a religious practice, and the law should have nothing to say about it. To those of us with an ounce of human decency, however, it's abominable, and those who practice this type of faith should be held accountable for any misfortune their children suffer from their negligence. If an adult wants to refuse medicine or blood transfusions, that's their decision. But a child isn't wise enough to understand the reality of the situation, and shouldn't have to suffer because the parents hold a particular belief.
Likewise, if we are to be fair, all religions must enjoy the same rights under the law. This would include religions that include such things as animal sacrifices, non-consensual "marriages" to relatives or minors (or both), and so on. In other words, the law would have to protect these barbaric practices, too.
I shudder to think what our society would be like if we actually permitted this to happen.
One thing that religionists commonly bring up is that the First Amendment talks about establishment "of religion" or free exercise "of religion." They point out that there is nothing that talks about establishing "no religion" or free exercise "of no religion."
To some, the wall of separation between church and state "establishes" a policy of "no religion." These people interpret this as the government being against religion. The concept of "neutrality" seems to escape them.
But more often, religionists will claim that "freedom of religion" doesn't include "freedom from religion." The Constitution says nothing about that, they maintain.
Of course, they're wrong.
If there is no freedom from religion, then there's really no true freedom of religion. More specifically, there's no true freedom at all.
If Americans do not have the right to freedom from religion, then they are obviously required to have a religion of some kind. They're having religion forced upon them, though there's certainly no way to force them to believe it.
Once again, many theists would see this as being perfectly fine. What's the problem? Non-believers can simply ignore the religious things in our society.
Well, let's use another example. But let's substitute something in place of "religion," something very personal. Just for fun, let's pick marriage.
Let's pretend that the First Amendment is specific to marriage. It would say that the government cannot make any laws respecting the establishment of marriage, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. What would this mean? It would mean that the government hasn't the right to say who can and cannot marry whomever else. Same sex marriages would be fine. Group marriages, too, for that matter. If the general public didn't like such alternative marriage availability… too bad. They can just ignore them. It's freedom of marriage, after all.
Actually, I kinda like that scenario. But wait. It isn't all nice and pleasant.
Notice that the new Amendment doesn't say anything about freedom from marriage. According to the same logic being used, it wouldn't matter what sort of marriage you had, but you'd have to marry, one way or the other.
Some would argue that we're not being "forced" to have religion. But we are. Every violation of the Establishment Clause is leading to exactly that.
Stating that there's no freedom from religion is the same as saying there's no freedom from marriage. And saying that the unbeliever didn't have to actually believe in the religion would be the same as saying the individual having marriage thrust upon them didn't actually have to love their spouse, or be faithful to them, or whatever.
Can anyone see any sense in either of these cases? I sure can't.
Theists must realize that the Exercise Clause has an implied "within reason" included, as well it should. This safeguards against harm being done by religion upon innocents. (Or should, anyway.)
The Establishment Clause, on the other hand, has an implied "without exception" included, as well it should. This safeguards against offense being made against any citizen purely because of religion. (Or again, it should, anyway.)
Breaches in this "wall of separation" between church and state are detrimental to the very foundation of our country. And therefore, to each and every one of us.
The wall of separation is a big one. And the cracks and breaches in it cannot all be repaired by any one party, even the government. It is up to all of us to safeguard the wall, to watch for those who vandalize it, to call for repairs whenever we see them, and to educate those who deface it.
The wall is there to protect all of us. So let's all protect it.
