Constitutional issue: religion
A case recently reported in my morning newspaper has to do with the rights of inmates in state prisons to assemble for the observance of unusual religions, such as Wicca and Satanism. Some prison administrators say they have no such rights.
The first amendment to the Constitution says, in full: "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."
There are two parts here that have to do with religion. The first part says there can be no religious establishment. That means that if inmates are allowed to hold Jewish or Episcopalian services, for example (which they are), they should be allowed to hold services of any religion, not just "established" religions. That led one prison administrator to ask whether religious inmates were being given rights that inmates without religion did not have.
Yes, they are, and the Constitution supports those special rights. I said the first amendment has two parts that concern religion, and the second part protects the "free exercise" of religion. The Constitution does not protect the free exercise of, say, sports, or science. It does protect, as we see above, the free exercise of religion, as well as speech, the press, assembly, and petition. Any such activities that are so protected by the Consitution have special rights.
I suppose that means that in order to afford all citizens the equal protection of the laws (as prescribed in the fourteenth amendment), we have to define atheism as a religion. There is no such thing as an irreligious person. After all, atheism is a faith. Religious people have faith in the teachings of their religion. An atheist has faith in his own belief that they are all mistaken. So it's not such a stretch, after all.
The first amendment to the Constitution says, in full: "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."
There are two parts here that have to do with religion. The first part says there can be no religious establishment. That means that if inmates are allowed to hold Jewish or Episcopalian services, for example (which they are), they should be allowed to hold services of any religion, not just "established" religions. That led one prison administrator to ask whether religious inmates were being given rights that inmates without religion did not have.
Yes, they are, and the Constitution supports those special rights. I said the first amendment has two parts that concern religion, and the second part protects the "free exercise" of religion. The Constitution does not protect the free exercise of, say, sports, or science. It does protect, as we see above, the free exercise of religion, as well as speech, the press, assembly, and petition. Any such activities that are so protected by the Consitution have special rights.
I suppose that means that in order to afford all citizens the equal protection of the laws (as prescribed in the fourteenth amendment), we have to define atheism as a religion. There is no such thing as an irreligious person. After all, atheism is a faith. Religious people have faith in the teachings of their religion. An atheist has faith in his own belief that they are all mistaken. So it's not such a stretch, after all.
posted by GrumbleGrouch at 10:30 AM
3 Comments:
You are partially right in your assessment.
The practitioners of "atheism" are religious of a sort yes.
BUT, the "establishment" clause by strict and original interpretation meant a state church (I.E. Church of England) it did not pertain to other religious practices.
Hello, constitutionwarrior: you said "the 'establishment' clause by strict and original interpretation meant a state church (I.E. Church of England) it did not pertain to other religious practices." The framers of that clause had to intend it to be broadly interpreted. England had a frankly established church because there was nothing to say they couldn't. But if the Bill of Rights had said (or meant) only that there should be no established church, then Congress might circumvent that prohibition by publishing a short list of approved religions, without designating any one as a State church. The clause says there should be no law that has anything to do with an established religion, and that has to be interpreted broadly.
Hello, there, quartz lefty: yes, philosophy is a pastime of the leisure class. But seeing as how you have the leisure to post your objections, your reason rings false. At any rate, if you don't want to play our game, for whatever reason, get off the field.
A further note for quartz lefty: I don't understand the drift of your argument. I agree that philosophy is for the leisure class. But the post you commented on is in support of the right of prisoners, who are worse off than either you or I, to have their own religious practices whatever they are. It would seem from your objections that you don't support that right. I suppose you think prisoners are also part of the leisure class.
Post a Comment
<< Home