The headline above Robert Box's column in The Weekly Vista April 5 edition was "First amendment confusion." I'm concerned the article may have added to the confusion.
Box makes it clear that the First Amendment says government can't establish religion or prohibit its free exercise. He mentions several conflicts that have come up around the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.
But then the confusion sets in. Box tells us about a Florida court case involving, in his words, "an atheist who objected to being exposed to someone expressing his or her religious convictions." Box says the atheist argues "that a religious person may not in any form or fashion practice religion that another person does not want to hear or see practiced."
The lawsuit Box refers to pits two citizens affiliated with the American Humanist Association against the city of Ocala in Florida. At issue is a one-hour prayer vigil city officials helped organize in response to a series of shootings in which children were hit by stray bullets. The plaintiff's court filings claim that during the vigil, police chaplains preached Judeo-Christian religion and conducted what amounted to a religious worship service.
Box says part of the issue boils down to the personal rights of atheists not to hear religious speech versus the rights of religious people to practice their religion. Atheists are in the minority, he says, so why should their rights supersede those of the religious majority?
But that's not the issue raised by this lawsuit. Atheists, including these two plaintiffs, are not fighting for some presumed right to avoid hearing religious speech. They are fighting to keep the government from establishing religion. If, for example, a group of churches wants to rent a public park and hold a prayer vigil, no atheist group is going to complain. They have the same right to rent the space for their own purposes. But when a publicly funded city police department and its representatives conduct what amounts to a Christian worship service, that's a problem.
The establishment clause of the First Amendment was intended to keep the government of the newly founded U.S.A. from endorsing any particular religion, or, arguably, religion in general. The Founders had plenty of experience with problems inherent in Church-State alliances in the Old Country. They saw America as a secular nation with a clear boundary between Church and State. Thomas Jefferson called it a "wall of separation."
Religious believers of all stripes are, and should be, free to worship as they see fit. The free expression clause of the First Amendment even extends to public expressions of religious beliefs. But the establishment clause of that same First Amendment says these expressions must not come from those acting on behalf of the government. These public servants represent all the people, and that includes people of all religions as well as those with no religion.
I hope this makes the discussion of the First Amendment a little less confusing.
Randy Hamm
Bella Vista