First Amendment thoughts

Young American Thinkers

In the wake of the COPA decision*, as in the earlier Howard Stern controversy, we as citizens need to look at the true meaning and purpose of the First Amendment. What the amendment means, and how it should be applied. And, when we do that, we find that many of today's court decisions fly in the face of logic.

The First Amendment text is far simpler than most people realize if you just read it and interpret it literally .

It states, in no uncertain terms,

'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.'
 
Now let us look at the first part of this Amendment.

Congress has no right to make laws regulating, or controlling religion in the United States. Note, that expression of religion, in any form whatsoever, is not to be even touched by the government.
 
Jefferson described in a letter a "wall of separation," in which on one side was the church, and the other the state. Jefferson felt that such a wall must be created, one that would hold the state back from ever controlling the church or the actions of its members, on matters of religious significance. However, the fence was not solid. Jefferson believed that the church had the right to petition and advise the government on its affairs, and provide a moral balance to the government.
 
This has some profound  implications in modern— day America.

First, the decisions by government to ban government offices from referring to God or Christ in any regard, or to take down crosses in public areas, are an attack on religious expression. I would be expressing my religious beliefs, as a government employee (which I'm not —— 15 year—olds can't get government jobs I'm told), by placing a cross in the lobby of the City Department that I hypothetically run. If the city council decides to place a cross on the city seal, then it is their right to do so. IF citizens disagree with that, then they can decline to reelect the people who put the cross on the seal.
 
You see, in America you do not have the right to not be offended by religion. Religion is our most fundamental right, and so important that it has more space than any other First Amendment right. Our Founding Fathers so strongly believed in it that they wanted to make sure government never would regulate how anyone, in public or private office, or in public or private space, expressed their religion, as long as that religious speech did not violate the rights of other people. Nowhere does the Constitution say you have the right to not be offended.
 
Which brings me to another set of rights in the First Amendment: The rights of free speech, press, assembly and petition. All of these rights cannot be abridged by the Congress (which decides on laws and regulations.) Congress was to set government policy and decisions. All that the executive branch does is provide the muscle power to enforce these policies. The courts in turn, punish those who violate those policies.

We must first look at what 'abridge' means, or else the meaning of the First Amendment will not be evident. Abridge means to shorten, curtail, to turn away, to prevent or stop. This is not the same as regulating. In fact, it is the job of government to regulate these rights, so as to prevent the violation of others' rights, to protect the public morally and physically, and to keep order. The executive branch can regulate these rights as long as everyone has a fair chance to express their views.

Which brings me to my practical application of this history lesson. In the recent decision of the Supreme Court on COPA, a radical view of the Constitution was used. Under COPA, the pornographers could still peddle smut. Their right to free speech was not blocked. Rather, it was regulated so that small children could be protected from explicit images. This merely regulated free speech, instead of preventing it.
 
So it all boils down to one critically important point with the First Amendment. No one in government can regulate religious expression, or prohibit its expression in public. The protection of religious expression precedes free speech in the First Amendment, and is stronger.  Hence, every liberal decision that has cited church and state, while removing church, has flown in the face of the First Amendment. The rights listed after religious expression can in fact be regulated and controlled by government. However, the expression of those rights can not be denied. Instead, they can be regulated for the protection of the public, and in the interests of order.

The courts have had their priorities wrong.

____________________________
* The Supreme Court ruled that a bill requiring a credit card for those who wish to see pornographic images was in fact unconstitutional.

Anthony Medica IV is 15 years old, and a student of River Ridge High School  in Olympia, Washington.. He is a member of Westwood Baptist Church, and describes himself as a devout conservative Christian.