The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black believed that the First Amendment requires the state to stay neutral in its relationship with religion. I disagree with Justice Black’s interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that Congress can make no law establishing a religion. It does not say that the state may not favor a religion or it’s general philosophy. We, after all, have history of Christianity in the beliefs and practices of today. It does not say that the government cannot take part in the celebration of holidays or prayers, which is the current interpretation in our government. However, it would still be the state’s job to make sure that all citizens, especially citizens of all religions, would be treated equally. When government officials convey themselves with religious expressions or symbols, it is sometimes seen as alliance between church and state. In actuality, it is called freedom of expression. This type of favoring, if you consider it such, of religion should be allowed.
At a first look, the First Amendment appears to be written in clear terms, saying Congress shall make no law in violation of certain religious and political principles. After a closer reading, and upon more reflection, the amendment’s underlying issues rise to the surface in the form of many many arguments between political parties for centuries. What kind of law respects the establishment of religion? Does the First Amendment include only laws that would establish an official national religion, as the Anglican Church was established in England? Does it also include laws that recognize or endorse religious activities such as the celebration of Christmas? Can people even agree on what is meant by religion so that judges may know when religion is being established or when the right to its free exercise has been infringed? These questions have been a subject of gigantic controversy in the USA, moreso as time goes on.
Hugo Black served on the U.S. Supreme Court for 34 years and is considered to be one of the most influential justices of all time, even though his background and path to the Court might have made less of an impact. Roosevelt eventually nominated Black to be a supreme court justice. And when he finally made it to the Senate, Black was confirmed by a vote of 63 to 16. However, shortly after, the public learned about Black’s past as a member of the Ku Klux Klan, a violent racist organization. On the eve of taking his seat on the Supreme Court, Black went public, saying that membership in the KKK was a necessity to enter politics in the South and they assisted him in his political campaigns. Black supported a strict separation of religion and state and wrote some of very influential decisions in the area of the establishment clause, for example, Everson v. Board of Education, which incorporated the establishment clause to the states, and in Engel v. Vitale, which did not support teacher-led prayer in the public school classroom.
In the past, the state has used its power to force religions. Torcaso v. Watkins in 1961, was a famous Supreme Court Case in which, the Constitution of Maryland required a declaration of belief in the existence of God in order for a person to hold “any office of profit or trust in this State”, however, Torcaso, an atheist, refused, and his appointment was consequently revoked. Torcaso, believing his constitutional rights to freedom of religious expression had been infringed filed a lawsuit against maryland. The court ruled that declared religious tests for public office candidates as unconstitutional. This ruling was justifiable. A public office should not be limited to a person of a specific religion. Public officials represent everyone in their community, not a just a specific religious interest. In the famous case of Moore v. Glassroth, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was charged with judicial ethics charges because he refused to remove the Ten Commandments monuments from a government building after being ordered to. The monument was eventually removed. I don’t agree with the ruling of this case. The Framers built their belief on Judeo-Christian philosophy. This is shown also in the fact that “Moses” and the “Ten Commandments” are depicted on the wall behind the Justices and Chief Justice in the Supreme Court. The monument wasn’t hurting anyone. It simply stated rules of morality that are believed by many cultures and many believers of different religions.
Government officials are under the rule of law; therefore they must follow the same regulations as anyone else in society. Corresponding to the rule of law, officials must also have the same rights as all other citizens. Government officials must have the right to express their beliefs and philosophies in seeking the common good. There have also been times that state power has been used to favor religions and their associations In the Supreme Court Case of Bowen v. Kendrick in 1988, a group of federal taxpayers, clergymen, and the American Jewish Congress filed suit against Otis R. Bowen, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, arguing that the Adolescent Family Life Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court allowed federal funds to support religious organizations offering counseling. This was because of the new Adolescent Family Life Act that had been put into effect. This decision was justifiable because it was not going to the organization to further the religion, but to help the community.
More recently, President Bush has created the Faith-based and Community Initiative Program. This allows faith-based institutions to vie, equally, for federal funds, and pushes for Identifying and eliminating barriers that impede the full participation of people in need in the Federal grants process, ensuring that Federally-funded social services administered by state and local governments are consistent with equal treatment provisions, and pursuing legislative efforts to extend charitable choice provisions that prevent discrimination against faith-based organizations. Finally it aims to protect the religious freedom of people who receive aid, and preserve religious hiring rights of faith-based charities. Now, churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious groups can get federal funding without being discriminated against simply because they are a religious organization. These institutions help the community and the general welfare of its people. Just as it was in Bowen v. Kendrick, this act is reasonable because it is for the common good of the people. In conclusion, I believe that the First Amendment does not require that government to remain neutral between religions, as long as the natural and civic rights of all citizens of all religions are equally protected.
The government may favor specific religions and religious philosophies for the betterment of the welfare and morality for themselves and the constituents it seeks to serve. I disagree with Justice Black’s interpretation of the First Amendment. He once said, “I am for the First Amendment from the first word to the last. I believe it means what it says.”, however, I believe this; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” is what the First Amendment says and that is exactly what it means.
2019-1-4-1546631877