We often read about organization attempting to ban any metion of God from schools and the Pledge of Allegiance. The same organizations also try to ban nativity scenes and crosses from public property. All of this is done in the name of separation of church and state and the 1st amendment prohibition against the government’s establishment of a particular religion. I believe that even a reasonable interpretation and especially an interpretation in context of the original intent of the constitution would find these advocates not only unsupportive but actually in contradiction of what the 1st amendment says and was intended to do. Phrases such as “separation of church and state” and “freedom of religion” are not found in the constitution. They are derived concepts from otherwise unstated constitutional concepts. That they are derived and not explicit do not make them invalid arguments but they shouldn’t actually contradict the original intent or wording of the constitution. Too much emphasis is placed on the prohibition against establishment of religion, i.e. the “establishment clause” and not enough emphasis on the freedom of religion. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive but should be interpreted in a manner that both have meaning. It is possible that a government does not establish a religion while still supporting the free expression of religion.
As long as one is free to practice their religion without government penalty or interference, there is no violation of the 1st amendment. This does equate to freedom from the influences of other religions but merely the right to practice one’s own religion. The government is not “establishing” religion by allowing religious expression provided that it does not impose a penalty on those not practicing or not agreeing with the religion being expressed. Allowing a manger on public property does not penalize those of other religions or prohibit their practice. To say such an action is a “coercive” exercise of government power not only is against the intent of the 1st amendment, it is in direct violation of it as it ignores the right to religious expression. The Constitution does not limit this right to “politically acceptable” avenues or means. Such a secular leaning is itself in violation of the 1st amendment as secular beliefs are in themselves an expression of though and morals, i.e. a religion in itself, and allowing secular thought to limit the rights of other religious expression would be an actual establishment of religion which is the very thing the secularists are against.
As long as the decision to locate a manger or cross or any other religious symbol is located on public policy is made through democratic means, it does not violate the 1st amendment. Opponents to this view would cite years of court and social precedent. However, it is precedent that was itself based on faulty logic. I am a big supporter of precedent except when it comes to constitutional interpretations as the constitution cannot be amended by simple legislative action. Emphasizing precedent in the constitutional context only serves to ingrain bad arguments after bad argument into our system of justice.
