So today’s topic is one that many of us have seen before, in one form or another. Someone thought they were being clever, by taking the common phrasing of part of the first amendment, and twisting it around a little bit. To remind you all, the first amendment does not provide “freedom of religion,” it says this:
“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.”
What that means is that the government will generally leave you alone when it comes to religious beliefs and practices, but it does not mean that you are free to do anything you like under the name of religion. In a Supreme court case in 1890 (Davis v Beason), it says “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.” This is why Mormons are allowed to believe in polygamy all they want, but will lose their tax exempt status if they actually practice it.
But a big part of the establishment of religion clause means that the government will also not endorse religion. This is where the whole separation of church and state concept comes into play, and where freedom from religion is granted by the constitution. Public schools are not allowed to lead religious ceremonies–we are protecting kids from religion. The government won’t make laws that single out and protect religions either. The closest the come is granted churches tax exempt status, but that is actually an exemption for property “used exclusively for religious, educational or charitable purposes” owned by a non-profit. So it applies to museums and libraries just as much as it does to churches and temples.
But there is more to the first amendment. It is also the freedom of speech and of the press. But as you should well know, being free from censorship does not mean that you are free to say anything you want. Inciting riots and panic aren’t allowed, and you can’t yell “fire!” or “he’s got a gun!” in a crowded place (unless there is a fire or a gun). The freedoms granted religion work in the same way.
Unfortunately, this does allow missionaries to go door to door and try to talk to you, and for Jehovah’s witnesses to stand on street corners and bother you. So it’s not perfect freedom from religion, but it’s a balance between you not having to deal with them if you don’t want to, and them being free to talk about what they want to.
There is some give and take. Yes, there is some freedom for religion, but there is also a lot of protection against religion. So this picture, this idea, this phrase we are all faced with is complete nonsense.
And don’t even get me started on those people that think the first amendment means, “you have freedom of religion, not freedom to have no religion.” Those people are so disconnected from reality they’re not worth discussing.