"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof," so says the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Together these phrases make up what is known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
There seems to be a current Supreme Court case where these Clauses seem to be at odds. From the article:
Pleasant Grove City, Utah, is asking the justices in arguments Wednesday to allow it to reject the donation of a display from the religious group known as Summum.
The Salt Lake City-based group wants to erect its "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument in the city's Pioneer Park, which is home to a Ten Commandments monument that was donated in 1971 by another private group.....
The case appears to raise questions of government favoring one religion over another, which is prohibited by the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. But the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resolved the dispute on free speech grounds.
So, either the government is establishing a religion or it allows free speech. Quite a conundrum.
The religious right might do some soul-searching on this one. For all those who want the Ten Commandments posted from the rooftops of all public office buildings, do you really also want this group doing the same thing?
The Summum say the Seven Aphorisms were given to Moses on Mount Sinai along with the Ten Commandments. Moses destroyed the tablet containing the aphorisms because he saw the people weren't ready for them, the Summum say.
So, which clause takes precedent?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I've always thought the Religious Right should be very careful in their fervent justifications for religious/Christian symbols and precepts in government and government establishments.
Besides, I'm not even sure the impression that we're a Christian nation is necessarily a positive for the Church. We've gotten to a point in our culture, especially here in the South, where "Christian" is merely a synonym for "nice." But see, we already had a word for nice. It's nice.
By thinking that we can legislate morality and hold high symbols of religion in the public square, we've neglected our own personal responsibility to have a positive impact on our world.
I think the Founding Fathers had it right: don't Constitutionally establish a religion, but don't prevent the people from exercising it freely. Seems like a huge part of America flirts with the Establishment Clause while another get dangerously involved with the Free Exercise Clause.
Yes Kev, the 1st amendment is brilliantly written because it balances these two clauses in perfect tension. Either extreme is a little too far.
Of course, it's always up to the Supreme Court to interpret more fully what the 1st amendment means. And so, in this case, since the town has already established one monument, it has to allow the other one, I think.
Post a Comment