Wednesday, November 30, 2011
"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."
The First Amendment of the US Constitution is a broad "Congress can't do" statement. This amendment guarantees Americans the right to speak their mind, worship or not worship as they choose, write their opinions down and set the before the public, gather in protest or in support of a specific cause, and to tell our government, the body that created these amendments, that we are displeased with their actions.
The first section addresses the establishment of a state sponsored religion. This was directly linked to the establishment of the Church of England. The founders elaborated on this by guaranteeing the right to worship, and the manner in which they worship up to the individual. This section does NOT contain the words "separation of church and state" as is so often quoted. Nor does this amendment declare anything other than the prohibition of a national religion. The "separation of church and state" quote is instead found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist association of Connecticut. This quote stems from Jefferson's agreement with the Danbury Baptists that "...religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship..." He goes on to state that because of the first amendment, and the prohibition on government establishment of a national religion, it has created a, "wall of separation between Church & State." This does NOT, in anyway state that every mention of religion should be stricken every facet of government (i.e. Pledge of Allegiance, currency, photographs, etc.) Far too many have taken this amendment out of context in order to further personal agendas, thus violating the very amendment they claim to support by suppressing the freedom to worship, and the freedom to speak and express their faith. This amendment does not, in any way, shape, or form give any citizen the right to suppress the speech or expression of any other citizen with whom they disagree.
(Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association): http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
The next three "government can't do" aspects of this amendment give Americans the right to express themselves, speak freely without fear of government reprisal, and to gather in protest or support of a certain item or issue. The freedom of speech and expression is one of our most prized freedoms. However, more often than not, individuals that carry this amendment as their banner use these freedoms to agitate, anger, and inflame the sensibilities of the masses. An example is the Westboro Baptist Church. They are given the right to protest at the funerals of fallen service members under the Constitution, however, in certain instances, in the zeal to protect the WBC's right to speech and assembly, the rights of the families of the fallen have been restricted. A line must be drawn regarding this amendment to prevent the rights of the few from trampling the rights of the many. Just as we protect the rights of those we don't agree with, so should we protect the rights of those we do. Regarding the right to peaceably assemble, many have missed a key word in that guarantee, "peaceably". At the point in time where the assembly becomes uncivil, violent, disruptive, or impacts those beyond the assembly in a negative manner, the assemblage has moved beyond the first amendment right and begun encroaching on the rights of those around them, again, violating the very rights guaranteed to them. Recently, the OWS movement occupied numerous public spaces around the country. While most were peaceful and fell within the bounds of the First Amendment, many did not. By occupying Zuccotti Park in NYC, the OWS movement disrupted the commerce of local businesses, denied free and uninhibited access to the park by non-OWS citizens, as well as creating a less than peaceable assembly when they refused to comply with orders to disperse. Even excessive noise voids the protection of "peaceable assembly" when the peace of others is violated. This does not mean that chanting should be prohibited, but explosives, fire-bombs, and other items restricted from general-public use should be dealt with within the confines of the law.
The freedom of the press is one that America has taken to heart and protects with substantial ferocity. We are fortunate enough not to live in fear of government reprisal if we read a dissenting opinion in the local paper that openly criticizes the President's economic policies. Publishing and distributing inflammatory literature is also protected, regardless of how much you may disagree with the message. The right to print and distribute this material is no greater than the right to decline the offer of the material or disagree with the message being distributed.
The final freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances (tell them you don't agree with their policies) is one that should be expressed more often. Handcuffing yourself to the fence outside the White House or lying on the steps of the Capitol Building en mass is not petitioning the government. Letter writing, the sending of emails, telephone petitions, even peaceable assemblage to voice your displeasure is a Constitutionally protected right. As a personal note, perhaps if more people exercised this section of the First Amendment, we could see a positive change in our government and their policies.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution is a broad "Congress can't do" statement. This amendment guarantees Americans the right to speak their mind, worship or not worship as they choose, write their opinions down and set the before the public, gather in protest or in support of a specific cause, and to tell our government, the body that created these amendments, that we are displeased with their actions.
The first section addresses the establishment of a state sponsored religion. This was directly linked to the establishment of the Church of England. The founders elaborated on this by guaranteeing the right to worship, and the manner in which they worship up to the individual. This section does NOT contain the words "separation of church and state" as is so often quoted. Nor does this amendment declare anything other than the prohibition of a national religion. The "separation of church and state" quote is instead found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist association of Connecticut. This quote stems from Jefferson's agreement with the Danbury Baptists that "...religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship..." He goes on to state that because of the first amendment, and the prohibition on government establishment of a national religion, it has created a, "wall of separation between Church & State." This does NOT, in anyway state that every mention of religion should be stricken every facet of government (i.e. Pledge of Allegiance, currency, photographs, etc.) Far too many have taken this amendment out of context in order to further personal agendas, thus violating the very amendment they claim to support by suppressing the freedom to worship, and the freedom to speak and express their faith. This amendment does not, in any way, shape, or form give any citizen the right to suppress the speech or expression of any other citizen with whom they disagree.
(Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association): http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
The next three "government can't do" aspects of this amendment give Americans the right to express themselves, speak freely without fear of government reprisal, and to gather in protest or support of a certain item or issue. The freedom of speech and expression is one of our most prized freedoms. However, more often than not, individuals that carry this amendment as their banner use these freedoms to agitate, anger, and inflame the sensibilities of the masses. An example is the Westboro Baptist Church. They are given the right to protest at the funerals of fallen service members under the Constitution, however, in certain instances, in the zeal to protect the WBC's right to speech and assembly, the rights of the families of the fallen have been restricted. A line must be drawn regarding this amendment to prevent the rights of the few from trampling the rights of the many. Just as we protect the rights of those we don't agree with, so should we protect the rights of those we do. Regarding the right to peaceably assemble, many have missed a key word in that guarantee, "peaceably". At the point in time where the assembly becomes uncivil, violent, disruptive, or impacts those beyond the assembly in a negative manner, the assemblage has moved beyond the first amendment right and begun encroaching on the rights of those around them, again, violating the very rights guaranteed to them. Recently, the OWS movement occupied numerous public spaces around the country. While most were peaceful and fell within the bounds of the First Amendment, many did not. By occupying Zuccotti Park in NYC, the OWS movement disrupted the commerce of local businesses, denied free and uninhibited access to the park by non-OWS citizens, as well as creating a less than peaceable assembly when they refused to comply with orders to disperse. Even excessive noise voids the protection of "peaceable assembly" when the peace of others is violated. This does not mean that chanting should be prohibited, but explosives, fire-bombs, and other items restricted from general-public use should be dealt with within the confines of the law.
The freedom of the press is one that America has taken to heart and protects with substantial ferocity. We are fortunate enough not to live in fear of government reprisal if we read a dissenting opinion in the local paper that openly criticizes the President's economic policies. Publishing and distributing inflammatory literature is also protected, regardless of how much you may disagree with the message. The right to print and distribute this material is no greater than the right to decline the offer of the material or disagree with the message being distributed.
The final freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances (tell them you don't agree with their policies) is one that should be expressed more often. Handcuffing yourself to the fence outside the White House or lying on the steps of the Capitol Building en mass is not petitioning the government. Letter writing, the sending of emails, telephone petitions, even peaceable assemblage to voice your displeasure is a Constitutionally protected right. As a personal note, perhaps if more people exercised this section of the First Amendment, we could see a positive change in our government and their policies.
0 comments:
Post a Comment