First Amendment Issues

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads: "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." To say that these words have been much debated in our nation is an understatement.

Because of the fundamental rights contained in this amendment, passions over legal decisions based on it run high. Supreme Court rulings on such issues as school prayer, moments of silence in school, inclusion of Bible readings, prayers at high school commencements, displays of nativity scenes on public property, and displays of the Ten Commandments on public property, among others are based on this amendment. Citizen protest against the Supreme court rulings have also been based on this amendment.

Legal scholars and religious experts have argued over what the framers of the Constitution meant when this amendment was proposed and ratified. More important to ask now, however, is: What does this amendment mean to us as citizens in a religiously diverse nation? Some would argue that the Constitution provided freedom for religious groups to be part of the public square not to guarantee freedom from religion in the public square. And, thus, if Christians wanted to lead prayers or read scriptures as part of the morning school-wide announcements in public schools, for example, they should be allowed to do so. That may sound good to you, but what about the rights of the myriad other religious groups in the community? Should Muslim students and Jewish students also lead prayers in the same way? If the Ten Commandments are displayed on the walls of a public school classroom, should The Laws of Manu also be displayed?

In the April 2008 issue of Report From The Capital, a publication of the Baptist Joint Committee, comes a story about a case to be considered by the Supreme Court in the 2008-2009 term that illustrates this dilemma. Pleasant Grove City, Utah allowed the Fraternal Order of Eagles to donate a Ten Commandments Monument in the 1960s that is displayed in a public park. Now, a group, based in Salt lake City, called SUMMUM is asking the city to display a monument listing its "Seven Aphorisms of Summum." The same deal would be applied. The Summum group would donate the monument and the city would put it in the public park next the Ten Commandment monument. The city refused. The governmental officials contend they could chose which monuments to display and which not to display. So, now, the Supreme Court gets to decide.

What do you think? If one monument relating to Judaism and Christianity is displayed, should any other religious group be allowed the same privilege? Should no religious group have a display on public property? Should the community be allowed to make the decision? If so, what does that say about the rights of groups that are in the minority in that area?

Stayed tuned. This issue will not go away.