Nothing is as it seems under First Amendment

By Mark Engebretson
FAI Scholarship Winner

Having attended a pair of First Amendment Institute sessions, there are a couple of things that are glaringly obvious.

First, not everything is as it seems and, second, Supreme Court justices are pretty intelligent folks.

Most people hear snippets on the news about this Supreme Court decision or that decision without really knowing the logic that went into the decision.

In reviewing these decisions, it becomes obvious that most of the rulings are based on law and logic. While there are dissenting opinions and disagreements in meanings and the intent of those who wrote the Bill of Rights, there is little doubt that Supreme Court justices study previous rulings and apply logical thought to most of them.

We hear a lot about liberal and conservative justices, but are they really?

One thought that occurred during these sessions was, is today’s liberal tomorrow’s conservative?

At the time of the War of Independence, the American colonists were thought to be “liberal” — if not altogether “radical” — by their British rulers because the freedoms the colonists demanded were “liberal” ideas. Yet, today, those who believe as the framers of the Constitution did are considered “conservative.”

Today’s “liberals” are blamed for allowing flag burning and “liberals” are blamed for taking prayer out of school. The Supreme Court has ruled flag burning is constitutional, school prayer isn’t — two apparently anti-American rulings. But, are they really?

“Conservatives” want to protect the flag from desecration and return prayer to the classroom. But are these rulings really “liberal” or are they in fact “conservative” views that were held by those who set forth the Bill of Rights?

For those who are unaware of the workings of the First Amendment Institute, it is a study of the First Amendment rights and a review of some of the more pertinent Supreme Court rulings that have either enhanced or detracted from its provisions.

The latest session, which dealt with both the establishment and free exercise clauses of the freedom of religion portion, was perhaps the most eye opening.

Across America, there is a sense that Supreme Court justices are anti-religion, that they are taking God away from the people of the nation and out of government and that their rulings, particularly on the issue of school prayer, are “un-American.”

Perhaps the most egregious ruling of the Supreme Court was one which effectively nullified the “free exercise” clause. In that ruling, justices wrote that the free exercise of religion cannot and will not take precedent over existing laws. Consequently, most Constitutional attorneys have said the free exercise clause cannot be used to challenge any law. Instead, those challenges must involve freedom of speech issues.

Most experts agree, however, that the establishment clause is perhaps the most misunderstood of the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. Supreme Court rulings have held that government may not endorse, establish or show preferential treatment to any religion.

Is this a “conservative” view or a “liberal” one? For, under the provisions of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

From the earliest times of man, religion has played a dominant role in government and it is only within the last 225 years that America’s experiment with freedom of religion has taken place.

In America, there is no requirement to belong to a certain religion or church, to attend services, or to even believe in God.

American soldiers are dying because of those who would bring this nation to its knees because of their religious beliefs. Today, in the Middle East, we fight against religious fanatics who believe in only one religion, one god, one way of life — and it is not our belief.

The dangers are obvious to anyone who would see, yet within our nation there are those who demand everyone follow their beliefs.

It is a fine line this nation treads between maintaining the government’s neutrality in religious affairs while allowing the tenets of its national belief to influence the moral and just leadership of the nation.

Ironically, it is only through God’s guidance that we shall find our way.

Editor’s Note: The TPA contest committee selected Mark Engebretson as the 2005 TPA First Amendment Institute Scholarship winner. The institute is hosted by the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas over four sessions. The scholarship pays the recipient’s tuition.