What is the Deal with Prohibiting Religion?

Jan Larson

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
- US Constitution, Amendment I

Just about everyone in the United States has probably least heard of, or maybe even experienced, a case where some long-standing tradition such as the display of a nativity scene, the singing of Christmas songs or the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance has been subject to legal challenge. In far too many of these cases, the challenges have been upheld under the premise of the separation of church and state.

Language evolves over time and some of the language and phrases used by the founders in the Constitution are not entirely easy to understand for many people today. However, it seems pretty clear to me what the above portion of the First Amendment means.

Congress, not city councils, state legislators or junior high teachers, but Congress shall not make any law that establishes a religion. In addition, Congress shall not make any law that precludes anyone from practicing his or her religion. Pretty simple, it seems to me.

These two simple statements have evolved, through judicial rulings over the years, to effectively mean that nothing that may be viewed by anyone as having a religious connotation may exist or be practiced in any way in any institution that could be considered "the government." How does singing a traditional Christmas carol in a school have anything to do with Congress establishing a religion?

To be clear, I do not favor religion or religious advocacy emanating from government entities. I do have a problem with the fact that the second clause of the First Amendment is not being defended. Just as government shall not establish or promote a particular religion, government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion.

The mayor of Cranston, Rhode Island, Stephen Laffey, appeared on The O'Reilly Factor last week and defended his decision to allow a nativity scene and a menorah, along with several other non-religious items including a group of plastic pink flamingos, to be displayed on the front lawn of the Cranston city hall. Naturally the ACLU is challenging these "religious" displays claiming that their display on public property constitutes an "establishment" of religion.

Preposterous.

The ACLU and other left-wing extremists that fight so hard to protect the sanctity of the so-called "establishment clause" of the Constitution might want to take a look at the preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States ... .

The government is not some faceless monolith, but it is "we" the people. Government entities at all levels are not "things" but are "we the people." The public property that is so vigorously defended by the ACLU is "our" property. "We" can use that property as "we" see fit.

Any attempt to prohibit the use of public property for the display of religious symbols stands contrary to "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Mayor Laffey, in the aforementioned interview, stated that his approach is one of inclusion and that the only restrictions on the displays are that they must not be obscene or in some other way offensive. Displays representing different religions are welcomed. In other words, the mayor is using common sense and is allowing the all of the "people" to use "their" property as they see fit. The ACLU's position as a defender of the Constitution notwithstanding, this is how it should be.

There is no "establishment" of religion in this case or in many similar cases. This is simply a case of the people of Cranston using "their" public property to celebrate the holiday season. The ACLU should be defending the rights of citizens to exercise their chosen religion, not trying to drive all religious expression from the society, as some (a vocal minority) would prefer.

We could use a lot more common sense in this country when it comes to "public" use of "public" property. With the dawn of a new year just a few days away, would it be too much to ask that we resolve to use some common sense in 2004? Unfortunately, the answer is that it probably is too much to ask.

###

Jan A. Larson is currently employed in private industry in Texas. He is a staunch supporter of honesty in government, fiscal conservatism and equal opportunity for all. He holds a bachelor of science degree from the University of Nebraska, a master of science degree from the University of Kansas and an MBA from Colorado State University.
jan@pieofknowledge.com