A Citizen’s Perspective

The First Amendment and you By Paul K. Schwartz Sentinel Columnist May 12, 2016 The First Amendment to the Constitution covers a great deal in very few words. Specifically it states: "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." If there is one word that is the most significant among the 44 words that comprise the amendment it is the word "Congress". The amendment is intended to prevent "Congress", and by Congress, the government, from enacting laws that would violate an individual's right to practicing his or her religion or exercising his or her right to free speech, a free press, assembling peaceably, or petitioning the government. Anyone who has taken eighth grade American history will likely remember that the purpose behind the First Amendment, as it relates specifically to religious freedom, is to protect individuals from the religious persecution many had experienced in various European countries. It was to escape religious persecution that so many families emigrated from those countries to seek religious freedom in the colonies. Think Pilgrims. Think Plymouth Rock. The Pilgrims, you may recall, left England for America in the early 17th century to find a safe haven to practice their own religious beliefs which differed from those of the Church of England. Our founding fathers sought to ensure this freedom from any religious persecution by the government by crafting the First Amendment and the specific wording: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The first portion served to separate church and state by precluding the government from establishing an official religion. The second part served to protect an individual's right to practice his own religion, not impose it on others. As founding father James Madison pointed out: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." Thomas Jefferson, another founding father, wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & God, that he owes account to none for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." The best example to see what religious freedom is not is to look at the Kim Davis fifteen minutes of fame and the support she received from several former Republican presidential candidates such as Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Ben Carson. Ms. Davis's actions as a government official who chose to impose her own religious beliefs on others by not issuing a marriage license because, in her opinion, a particular lifestyle goes against her own religious beliefs are not much different in principle than the religious persecution by the governments that our early settlers sought to escape. Such an action is exactly what the First Amendment was attempting to protect against. To cite the First Amendment as a justification of her action is a complete misrepresentation of that amendment. Further, civil disobedience, by definition, must be carried out, not by the party that possesses authority as a government official like Ms. Davis had, but, rather, by a party that has no such authority. Civil disobedience is being disobedient to authority. Another example is Ben Carson and the stance he had taken during an interview on Meet the Press in which he stated that a "Muslim should never be in charge of the United States, and that Islam, as a religion, is inconsistent with the United States Constitution." Where, exactly, in the Constitution is this inconsistency to be found was, of course, never made clear by Carson since there is no such wording. Similarly, the same can be said for the incidents, make that violence, that were occurring at Donald Trump rallies prior to his "presumptive" nomination. According to Trump, "the organized group of people, many of them thugs, who shut down our First Amendment rights in Chicago, have totally energized America". Trump went on to blame Bernie Sanders and his supporters for the disruption. This rhetoric served only to demonstrate that Trump possesses as little understanding of the First Amendment as does Ben Carson. It is only the government, not Bernie Sanders or unfriendly audience members, who can violate Trump's First Amendment right to, in this case, speech and assembly. Recent legislation by states such as Mississippi, North Carolina and Alabama that sanction restrictions regarding transgender use of bathrooms are another blatant attempt to impose one's own personal beliefs on others. This controversy is not about any threats posed by the transgender community and bathroom use. Rather, it is about imposing beliefs on others and rejecting an individual's right to choose how to conduct his or her own life. This is made evident by the justification provided for the new laws that base bathroom selection on gender at birth. The justification given, such as by the "late" Ted Cruz, is the threat posed by a man dressed as a woman entering a bathroom for the purpose of molesting young girls. Absurd. First, that individual is not transgender; that individual is a cross dressing criminal. Further, as the NRA likes to point out: "Criminals don't obey the law"...especially, I might add, laws that don't apply to them like these discriminatory ones against the transgender community. In Alabama the proposal is to prevent transgender individuals from using any public restroom. I expect they will refer to it as the "hold it in" law. The Constitution, more than anything, is about rights of its citizens and their protection from government violation of those rights. Whether it be about voting, speaking, practicing religion, running for office, or, dare I say, bearing arms, or, for that matter, use of public restrooms, laws that violate those rights are unconstitutional.