We tend to read too much into the First Amendment
by James Simpson

Potomac News
Friday, September 5, 2003

I sit here rereading the First Amendment and I can't for the life of me understand how a monument equates to a law. I am, of course, referring the recent removal of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building.

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" How exactly is a lawyer going to use a monument in a court case? Will he all of a sudden move from quoting Code and previous cases to saying that the defendant is guilty because a statement on a monument says so, whether or not it is on the books?

Before I go any further I will tell you that I cannot find any reference as to who paid for the above mentioned Ten Commandments monument. Personally I would be very upset if it was through any government funding, as I disagree with any and all monuments that are paid for by taxes. However, if it was privately funded, then in my opinion there was no basis for its removal.

If the simple act of having religiously related matter anywhere near a government building was prohibited by the First Amendment then we would live in a secular society similar to that of the former Soviet Union or Communist China. Bibles would not be used in court. Prayers would not be offered before meetings. And most importantly, our rights would have no foundation other than that of the benevolence of our rulers.

That is really the basis of this argument. Those who would abolish any reference to a Creator threaten Liberty itself by disavowing the existence of the source of our rights. The Declaration of Independence affirmed that these rights come from a higher power when the founders wrote: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

When rights are granted by rulers, as they are in secular societies, they can be just as easily nullified. The importance of that statement in the Declaration of Independence was to reiterate for citizens the fact that our rights are not granted to us by a king or ruler, but instead they exist as a condition of our existence.

The First Amendment was designed as much to protect religion from government as to protect government from religion. If a government, as history bears out, ties itself to one single religion, people of other faiths are persecuted.

When I hear about court decisions which ban certain religious practices, such as prayer in schools, based on a twisted interpretation of the First Amendment, I can't help but wonder what consequences we suffer as a result. Children who live in a society that has prohibited all references to a Creator are condemned to deal with the consequences of moral relativism.

Yes, parents are supposed to impart in their children whatever personal religious views they believe. And no, schools should not be responsible for installing any specific faith in kids. However, is it any wonder that many children are as messed up as they are when the message they receive from their parents on Sunday is one of faith and the message being forced on them by the schools, courts, and the government is one of secularism?

I have argued, and continue to believe, that the ultimate goal of folks who fight to remove any reference of religious belief from society is essentially leaving atheism as the de facto belief. So many folks seem intent on focusing on the first part of the First Amendment, which is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…" and completely ignore the second part "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…".

This second part means that students should have the right to pray in school if they wish and those who don't wish to pray... have the right not to pray. The exercise of this right does not limit the rights of those who do not wish to participate. I would defend the right of a Muslim child who wanted to pray at noon toward Mecca, as this would not infringe on the rights of other individuals in the class.

And the placement of the Ten Commandments or a plaque bearing the phrase "In God We Trust" in a courtroom or at a school similarly does not limit the rights of others who do not believe in the faith that our country was founded upon. And it certainly doesn't infringe upon the First Amendment.

James Simpson lives in Lake Ridge. He lives in cyberspace at http://www.jamessimpson.org/