The ACLU and the First Amendment

[Queasy1]

From the ACLU Website

It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society.

Here's what they leave out by putting in the ellipsis (...).

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I anxiously await a correction from the ACLU on which appears first in the First Amendment.
Hat Tip - Best of the Web

 

[CrimsonNan]

Yes Queassss, and I have brought that to the attention of the posters on this board (not that y'all needed ME to tell ya). The ACLU and others conveniently leave out that part after the comma. But here we go again...........

 

[Queasy1]

I remember the ACLU discussion but don't recall the (...) part on their website. My mistake if it's been discussed ad nauseum.

 

[CrimsonNan]

No - it hasn't been discussed ad nauseam. I wasn't calling you down - just making a statement, and agreeing with you how the ACLU conveniently leaves things out when it suits their agenda. However, people are catching on now. We've had enough of the leftist agenda.

 

[It's On A Slab]

They need not make a correction.

From the ACLU Website


Here's what they leave out by putting in the ellipsis (...).

I anxiously await a correction from the ACLU on which appears first in the First Amendment.
Hat Tip - Best of the Web

It's there. Right on their home page under "Religious Liberty".

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLibertyMain.cfm

The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution's framers understood very well that religious liberty can flourish only if the government leaves religion alone.

The free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one's religion free of government interference. The establishment clause requires the separation of church and state. Combined, they ensure religious liberty.

 

[Queasy1]

Ummm, here's what they need to correct:

It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment:

The freedom of speech is not the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment. Freedom of religion is....

 

[Piglet]

Kinda funny that they'd leave the religion part out. Those ACLU cases about nativity displays in courthouses are BASED on the Establishment Clause. They've also been active in the Free Exercise Clause--it turns out the case where they ruled that schools couldn't force kids to salute the flag was brought on behalf of a Jehovah's Witness who believed the Pledge violated the Second Commandment, like the flag was a secular idol or something. And here I was being told it was because the ACLU hated the flag.

The ACLU is cool. They keep the Government from stompin' around on ya. I kinda wish they'd pay more attention to the right to bear arms (the Second Amendment, not the Second Commandment), but maybe they figure the NRA is doing ok without their help.

 

[It's On A Slab]

Ummm, here's what they need to correct:

The freedom of speech is not the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment. Freedom of religion is....

Okee, dokee.

Point taken.

 

[bamabake]

not freedom from it... if I may digess a bit.

 

[jthomas666]

not freedom from it... if I may digess a bit.

Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. You cannot be free to practice your religion if you are subject to having someone else's religion pressed upon you.

 

[bamabake]

Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. You cannot be free to practice your religion if you are subject to having someone else's religion pressed upon you.

Boils down to what pressed is I suppose. I didnt mean it the way you took it anyway.

 

[Piglet]

My understanding is that the rule is, Government doesn't get to proclaim the glory of Christ out loud the way you or I would, because Christ may be the way for most of us, but it isn't for everybody, and for a secular official to do something like preaching would be an "establishment" of Religion, and if they could "establish" Christ today, then they could "establish" Mohammed or Baal or whatever tomorrow.

I had to sit through one of those interdenominational things once where they had a Buddhist invocation as well as Catholic, Protestant, and a muslim who chanted to the group that there was no God but Allah. It seems to me that sitting through a ritual prayer that isn't of your own faith would be moderately annoying at worst and might even be interesting, but evidently there's some devout people who find that oppressive.

It also seems to me that God is everywhere, but the rituals and trappings really belong in our churches and households, and my experience is that a lot of guys who talk up faith and God the most outside of their church and family turn out to be hypocrites and con artists. The day the ACLU rants about nativity scene in front of a church or someone's house is a day I'll decide they've definitely gone too far. When it comes to courthouses and stuff, I think reasonable people can disagree.

 

[NYBamaFan]

Nowhere is there a commitment to shelter man from religion, simply to prevent state sponsored religion. In other words, there is no protection that would prevent public prayer or public displays of religion or religious items. Current law in this arena cannot be tied back to the Constitution as read, only as interpreted...

 

[Piglet]

Well yeah. If the idiots in DC can't even figure out that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means what it says, how are they going to figure out what is an "establishment of religion."

To me, a "public display" that they can't prevent is like when some guy starts preaching on the street corner, or when there's a prayer at the start of a pro football game. That isn't state sponsored. But if they do it at the *school* football game, or graduation, then it's state sponsored. At least it is if the school officials do it. If the students themselves want to have an extracurricular Bible group, I think the courts have ruled that they can do that.

 

[Tidewater]

Nowhere is there a commitment to shelter man from religion, ...

Virginia's proposed Bill of Rights, passed when she adopted the Constitution and joined the Union, stipulated, inter alia, "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others." I like this wording. I makes the relationship between man, law and God pretty clear. But so that no one would mistake which law they were talking about, the drafters of the actual 1st amendment made clear that this applied only to the Federal Government. ("Congress shall make no law...")

... simply to prevent state sponsored religion. In other words, there is no protection that would prevent public prayer or public displays of religion or religious items. Current law in this arena cannot be tied back to the Constitution as read, only as interpreted...

I would only add the "state sponsored religion" in this case means "Federally sponsored religion." But even that was not as cut and dried as the ACLU would have us believe, since the first thing the Congress directed after Washington inauguration was to direct that everyone go to a church service. What the first Congress wanted to do was stop one particular denomination from imposing itself nationwide via the Federal Government. Several States had esiction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others." I like this wording. I makes the relationship between man, law and God pretty clear. But so that no one would mistake which law they were talking about, the drafters of the actual 1st amendment made clear that this applied only to the Federal Government. ("Congress shall make no law...")

... simply to prevent state sponsored religion. In other words, there is no protection that would prevent public prayer or public displays of religion or religious items. Current law in this arena cannot be tied back to the Constitution as read, only as interpreted...

I would only add the "state sponsored religion" in this case means "Federally sponsored religion." But even that was not as cut and dried as the ACLU would have us believe, since the first thing the Congress directed after Washington inauguration was to direct that everyone go to a church service. What the first Congress wanted to do was stop one particular denomination from imposing itself nationwide via the Federal Government. Several States had established Churches at the time that they ratified the First Amendment, and for some time thereafter. Obviously the people who ratified the First Amendment did not have any problem maintaining their State's established religion while voting to deny the Federal Government the power to have its own. The establishment clause only came to be applied to State actions much later on.
And, no, I don't think that the President-elect opening his inauguration ceremony with a prayer counts as a Federally established religion. If a muslim were elected and opened with a muslim prayer, I am confident enough in my beliefs that I would stand quietly and respectfully while he went through whatever muslim prayer his imam thought was appropriate, or I would not attend the ceremony.