How would you argue that the First Amendment gives Americans freedom TO practice religion?

Question

I have to write this paper SUPPORTING Christianity and how we should be able to practice it. THe government has taken away the display of the Ten commandments, etc. and I have to argue how the first amendment should protect us and let us display our beliefs.

Answer 1

Well, I have to say, the government has taken away the display of Ten Commandments and faculty-led prayer in school for a good reason. It hasn't, however, taken away the rights of schoolchildren to read a Bible or pray in school. As an atheist who used to think all prayer should be banned, I've done plenty of research in the last ten years on the subject.

First off, the First Amendment states that government can't prohibit, nor establish religion. For the exact wording, you can find it all over the Internet and in something like World Book Encyclopedia. That's just the short take on it.

What this means is that each individual citizen has the right to believe as they choose. They can be Christian, Pagan, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, and yes, even atheist. It's their choice and the First Amendment guarantees this.

It also means that the government can't step on this right by choosing to establish a state religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Shintoism, or something else. To do so would exclude everyone BUT followers of the chosen state religion. Those who didn't follow would have to convert, leave the country, or risk imprisonment, interrogation, torture, and worse. And that's not what America is about.

So the First Amendment not only GUARANTEES our individual right to our own personal beliefs, but it protects them as well. The government has to stay out of it.

The deal with the Ten Commandments display in schools and courtrooms has been declared unconstitutional. This is because the Ten Commandments are a specifically Judeo-Christian thing. To display them in schools tells students whose beliefs(or nonbelief) these tenets are not a part of that they're not true Americans, that they don't belong, and that's not right.

Same goes for teacher or principal-led prayers that used to be done prior to 1963, when it was ruled unconstitutional. This was before my time, but my mother remembers those days and told me that her school used to recite the Lord's Prayer before school. This is also a uniquely Christian thing and to require non-Christian or non-believing students to recite such a prayer tells them that their beliefs(or nonbelief) doesn't count, that those beliefs are "wrong", and overall steps on their right to their own beliefs.

So to display the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or school, or to require prayer before class is unconstitutional as, like it or not, not everyone in this country is Christian and shares the same faith. To be respectful of those who don't, as well as protect those who do(instead of cheapening the faith by requiring frequent public displays of obedience towards a religion), it's been made unconstitutional.

But children have EVERY right to pray on their own. That has never been made unconstitutional and will never be. Children can pray before a test, a meal, whatever, and no school official can stop them. They can read a Bible or Koran or any holy book in school, it cannot be taken away from them. A person's right has always been there and has never been taken away.

The rulings that people say have done so, have not done anything other than protect each person's free right to believe as they choose, prohibiting government institutions(such as a courthouse or public school) from favoring one religion over another, which it did prior to said rulings. The only thing that has been taken away has been governmental favoritism over Christianity, especially during the 1950s, during the Cold War and McCarthyism eras, where everyone was afraid of the "godless Communists".

I'd reccommend going to http://www.freedomforum.org and doing a search on the Ten Commandments, First Amendment, Church and State, Pledge of Allegiance, School Prayer, and other topics of interest for this paper. It was a site that helped me better understand the subject and go from wanting to ban all prayer to defending both sides of the issue, the right to believe, and the right to not believe and thusly not be forced to believe by the government.

There are other places one can look just by doing a search. I've come across all sorts of arguements one way or another, extremes on both sides. This is all I can give you on my own personal opinion. After that, I'd try the library(old fashioned as that may be, lol), searches on the Internet, and such.

There's lots of information on the subject out there, if you're willing to look. :)

Answer 2

Because it says that.

Here is the text:

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.

The first part states that the government cannot establish a national religion. This existed in England and the founders understood that freedom means free from forced religion.

Then there is the prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is black and white. The government cannot establish laws stopping someone from practicing their religion.

There is a movement in the courts to use the separation of church and state, even though it does not exist. There are liberals all over the place who hate Christianity. They use the courts to push their anti-Christian agenda. The courts have routinely ignored the Constitution for years.

This is why the Supreme Court fight has become so nasty. Conservatives want people like Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia on the court. Making laws is for the legislature.

Answer 3

Who told you that the government took away your right to display the Ten Commandments? Whoever told you that is either lying to you, or doesn't understand things very well. As a private citizen, you are of course allowed to display the Ten Commandments on your property, or wear it on a T-shirt, or carry it around on a sign. That has nothing to do with the Establishment clause, but with the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment.

The government has NOT taken away our right to display the Ten Commandments.

The Constitution prohibits the *government* from displaying the Ten Commandments. That is a very, very big difference.

And it is at the heart of your freedom to practice your religion.

Think about it. You are currently in a country where Christianity is in the majority. But imagine it was the minority. Imagine there is a vote in your town to make The Church of Scientology (see source) the official religion of . The elected mayor and city council vote to inscribe quotes from L. Ron Hubbard on the walls of City Hall, and a large stone with the symbols of Scientology installed in the front lawn. The School Board where your children go to school votes to amend the Pledge of Allegiance to say "one world, under Dianetics" and the children recite it every morning (you instruct your kids to remain silent, but then the teacher asks them if they are not "patriotic"). The City Council (which starts every meeting with the new Pledge) starts enacting new laws to bring behavior in your town into conformance with the principles of Scientology. If you go to City Council or School Board meetings to protest that you are a Christian, the chairman declares you out of order because you do not believe in Scientology, and one member openly wonders if you should be allowed to raise children.

Chilling isn't it?

The only reason that cannot happen is because of the First Amendment. Without it, *governments* (a City, the State, or the Nation) could vote to favor one religion over another. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to restrict government ... because sometimes the majority can be *wrong* ... the majority should never be allowed to VOTE to inflict their beliefs on the minority.

The First Amendment is not a restriction on *people* ... it is a restriction on *government*.

Answer 4

Your best bet would be to use the equal protection clause.