At Least They Mean Well
Kudos are deserved by Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R – MD) if for no other reason than the fact that his heart is in the right place. As one of over one hundred members of the House of Representatives sponsoring a proposed constitutional amendment designed to protect religious expression on public property, Mr. Bartlett has given voice to the frustration that many Americans have felt in recent years as various secular groups have waged a war on religious expression in America – aided and abetted by the federal judiciary.
The amendment, titled the Religious Freedom Amendment, reads, “To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage and traditions on public property, including schools. The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity.”
In a statement released by his office, Representative Bartlett noted that “Intolerant people have been attacking the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary prayers at school, and other religious expression, but this amendment will halt those attacks.” A noble intent, to be sure. The only problem is that there is no reason to believe that the proposed amendment will actually do what the good congressman says it will do.
As this amendment is designed to shore up the right to religious expression as acknowledged in the First Amendment, a comparison of the two is inevitable. And what such a comparison reveals is that this new amendment is scarcely different than the original one. In it you have reiterations of both the Establishment Clause – regarding the establishment of “any official religion” – and the Free Exercise Clause – acknowledging that the “people retain the right to pray . . .” And, obviously, the presence of such language already in the Constitution for over 200 years hasn’t stopped the assaults on such expression. Why should a new amendment that merely rewords the First one be any different?
As good as the intentions of the amendment’s sponsors and supporters may be, it does not address the bottom line problem in this regard. The problem has never been how the text of the First Amendment was written with regard to religious freedom. The problem has always been that those who have sought to eradicate religious expression from the public square, as well as their enablers on the bench, have no regard for that text – or its original intent as envisioned by those who wrote it – in the first place. In other words, it doesn’t matter how many times you re-write the rulebook if the “referees” see fit to ignore the rules anyway.
To introduce an amendment that tacitly implies that the First Amendment is insufficient to protect the right of religious expression – previous generations certainly didn’t feel the need to – could be construed to be an acknowledgment of the courts’ and the liberals contention that the Constitution says whatever they say it says.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The proper way to address this “present distress” is not through tampering with the text of the nation’s Supreme Law, there’s nothing wrong with that text. This problem should be addressed through the reigning in of the courts’ perceived power over the will of the people as expressed by the Constitution that was ratified by those people. Somehow, the mindset has taken hold that the Constitution is answerable to the courts, instead of the other way around. When that problem is corrected, it will not only take care of the religious expression issue, but a host of others as well.
The amendment, titled the Religious Freedom Amendment, reads, “To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage and traditions on public property, including schools. The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity.”
In a statement released by his office, Representative Bartlett noted that “Intolerant people have been attacking the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary prayers at school, and other religious expression, but this amendment will halt those attacks.” A noble intent, to be sure. The only problem is that there is no reason to believe that the proposed amendment will actually do what the good congressman says it will do.
As this amendment is designed to shore up the right to religious expression as acknowledged in the First Amendment, a comparison of the two is inevitable. And what such a comparison reveals is that this new amendment is scarcely different than the original one. In it you have reiterations of both the Establishment Clause – regarding the establishment of “any official religion” – and the Free Exercise Clause – acknowledging that the “people retain the right to pray . . .” And, obviously, the presence of such language already in the Constitution for over 200 years hasn’t stopped the assaults on such expression. Why should a new amendment that merely rewords the First one be any different?
As good as the intentions of the amendment’s sponsors and supporters may be, it does not address the bottom line problem in this regard. The problem has never been how the text of the First Amendment was written with regard to religious freedom. The problem has always been that those who have sought to eradicate religious expression from the public square, as well as their enablers on the bench, have no regard for that text – or its original intent as envisioned by those who wrote it – in the first place. In other words, it doesn’t matter how many times you re-write the rulebook if the “referees” see fit to ignore the rules anyway.
To introduce an amendment that tacitly implies that the First Amendment is insufficient to protect the right of religious expression – previous generations certainly didn’t feel the need to – could be construed to be an acknowledgment of the courts’ and the liberals contention that the Constitution says whatever they say it says.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The proper way to address this “present distress” is not through tampering with the text of the nation’s Supreme Law, there’s nothing wrong with that text. This problem should be addressed through the reigning in of the courts’ perceived power over the will of the people as expressed by the Constitution that was ratified by those people. Somehow, the mindset has taken hold that the Constitution is answerable to the courts, instead of the other way around. When that problem is corrected, it will not only take care of the religious expression issue, but a host of others as well.
posted by JeffreyH | 12:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home