So You Want To Claim First Amendment Protection?

" 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."





Establishment and Free Exercise

Establishment of religion is something along these lines : The Government cannot set a state religion, cannot set laws that favor a religion over another, and government should not favor religion over non-religion.





Seems simple enough right? If only it were so.





See, the US and most modern Western Societies practice a form of secularism, where the government attempts to remain religiously neutral. That does not mean private parties cannot express their religious views or practice how they want (within legal limits), but it does mean the government cannot express religious views or preference.





There is a lot of debate over how this, (secularism) should be done and what this means. I will spare you the nitty gritty details, but just Google "courthouse ten commandments". There you will find pitched debates and discussion boards.



However, it should be noted the US was not founded on Christian principles. It was founded on Enlightenment principles. This is helpful when trying to determine what the establishment clause means in practice and how it should be carried out.





First Amendment, Legal Precedence, and Equal Protection

Before moving onto the "inversion" problem common with the first amendment, it is also necessary to cover the free speech portion, the case of Lemon v Kurtzman, and 14th amendment in brief.





The first amendment provides freedom of speech, something necessary in free and open societies. Freedom of speech means right to criticize and critique anything, as long as it is not libelous or slanderous (knowingly false). Without free discussion and criticism, society cannot progress. Without free speech, the best ideas cannot be accepted voluntarily, and the worst ones cannot be rejected through public consensus. In short: you may not like what I say - but I still have the right to say it.





The Fourteenth amendment provides (among other things) "equal protection of the laws". In short, laws must be applied equally, and laws cannot be created that explicitly target and discriminate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, political views, etc. When we get to private interactions within groups, individuals, or parties - things can get more dicey.





Finally, Lemon v Kurtzman. Essentially, laws must have a valid secular purpose in order to be constitutional.



For example: You cannot claim freedom to abuse your child even if it is part of your religion, because there are valid secular laws against child abuse. These laws are not designed to punish a religion - they are designed to protect the rights of minors (freedom from bodily harm). This is mentioned in further detail below.





note: I take very "liberal" views on these ideas. I think these rights should have little to no limitations and must be defended vigorously. I am even against laws that classify speech as hate speech, I think it is a necessary price to pay. Having these things legal and out in public is the only way to refute them and educate ourselves on their flaws. As stated in Snyder v Phelps, we cannot make some speech illegal just because we do not like it.





First Amendment "Inversion"

"Religious freedom is under attack!"





"I can do whatever I want! It is my religion and protected under the first amendnemt!"





"Secularists want to make atheism the state religion!"





These points are all classic examples of the first amendment "inversion" we are seeing coming from varying religious organizations - namely the religious right, and more conservative religions. These points are all flawed in their logic, and lets see why.





1. "Religious freedom is under attack" - This is demonstrably false. We have more religious freedom today than ever before. There were countless laws in the early US that specifically targeted religious minorities, and on top of that - people were incredibly opposed to many religious minorities. Even in the 60s, people were still talking about Kennedy's Catholicism. When most conservative Christians say this, what they are really saying is something along the lines of: "I want my religion to be favored by the State, but I do not want to have to respect any other views". Thus, the first amendment is inverted into only protecting their rights, when it was designed to protect everyone's rights.





2. " I can do whatever I want! It is my religion and protected under the first amendment! - If this logic is true, Islamic terrorism is suddenly as justified as abortion clinic bombings. Hate to break it to you but you cannot do whatever you want simply because your religion mandates it. As stated in Lemon v Kurtzman, if your religion asks you to violate secular laws and other people's human rights, you no longer have legal protection. Just recently even, a couple was sent to prison for refusing to seek medical treatment for their daughter (she unfortunately passed away). The parents believe only in faith healing and are against any from of medicine. They claimed religious protection in their defense, and they are now in prison for the death of their daughter.





3. "Secularists want to make atheism the state religion!"- No, secularists just want secularism. This type of straw man is an attempt to make it easier to attack secularism. Still against secularism? Think we should have religious laws and moral laws based on religious texts? Great, move to Saudi Arabia and tell me how that goes for every non Wahabi Muslim. You will quickly see the value of secularism.

Closing Points

So Christians, stop panicking that the government will make you marry gay people -it wont. Besides, if your track record is indicative of the future, I am sure you will allow it eventually anyways.





I think progressives are in part to blame for this as well. In the quest for ultimate political correctness, something has been lost. If a bakery does not want to bake a cake for a LGBT couple, that is okay. I will go and bake the cake for them or find another bakery for them. Hell, if the demand is big enough, I will create a bakery for the LGBT community. Conversely, if someone wants me to bake a cake with a swastika, I have the same right to say no. We need to allow freedom for both sides of the issue.





And to everyone else, stop trying to legislate laws based of your religious beliefs. Nobody is saying you cant personally be against LGBT equality, gender equality, or racial equality. But that is not something you can legislate. Yes, I think you're a close minded bigot for being against equality, but I will still protect your right to be a closed minded bigot.



I simply ask you help me protect the rights of minorities and the LGBT community in return.









Citations:























Editing note: some edits have been made to grammar, clarity, etc. In addition, feel free to check the comments below or comment with thoughts, or issues you may find.













I could start by asking people what the first amendmentsays, but I don't think that semantic argument would be beneficial. I mean, let's be honest here - people constantly cite the first amendment, while many people do not know what it even says and how it has been interpreted.I will make it easy, here is the first amendment :