ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The First Amendment to the Constitution: The Right to Free Speech and Freedom of Religion

Updated on April 14, 2018
Leland Johnson profile image

I have a desire for reasoned clarity regarding an issue that I believe is sorely misunderstood; the meaning of the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment

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.

For Every Right, An Equal Responsibility

The Founders of the United States of America had in their mind the notion that for every right there was an equal responsibility. At times this belief is stated outright in our founding documents, at other times it is implied, and still others it is so obvious as to be implicit. For a modern day example we drive down the road and see a sign that reads simply "Speed Limit 55mph." There are no educative clauses or parenthetical explanations as to what that directive means even though we could ask many questions as to its meaning.

The state places the speed limit signs making certain assumptions about you, and me, regarding our personal ability to make appropriate judgements. It assumes that we will know the proper application of the law, that it doesn't literally apply in cases of blizzards or rain storms. So it was with the Founders in regard to our application of, not only the first amendment, but indeed the first 10 amendments of our Constitution also known as The Bill of Rights. This fundamental trust in our reasoning capacities has always been challenged from generation to generation. Today that trust seems, not only challenged, but sometimes utterly misplaced. The clear wording of the first amendment has been twisted and inverted to the point of meaning the opposite of what the Founders intended it to mean. These words should not mean what I would like them to mean nor what I wish they did not mean. They should be understood soley upon the intent of its drafters. I would like to examine the statement itself and then offer some historical perspective.


Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting An Establishmet Of Religion...

The Establishment Clause/Free Exercise Thereof

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."


The second part of the text (prohibiting the free exercise thereof) is crucial for without it the meaning of the whole is lost. Note the word "respecting" in the first section. It is not used in the sense of giving honor as we think of the word respect today, like the way we should respect our parents or a police officer, etc. It meant "in regard to." So then "in regard to the establishment (or creation of) a religion" Congress can make no law, in regard to a religion that is, neither to create a new one or abolish an existing one. Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," in other words, Congress is to leave religion alone. It is not to interfere with religion as it is practiced from state to state within the nation. It is not to compel citizens to worship, nor is it to forbid citizens from worshipping, the latter is wrongly applied in our era routinely as we see this first amendment misapplied in such instances as forcing the removal of the 10 commandments from our schools and our state and national monuments because it "offends" someone. The Constitution does not protect the citizenry from being offended. In fact, quite to the contrary, what we as citizens ought to find offensive is our governments attempts to stifle and suppress what this first amendment guarantees, namely the "free exercise of" our religious convictions. It would at the very least disappoint the Founders to think that a prayer before a sporting event, asking God to protect all participants, would be deemed "unconstitutional." This was not their intent. This type of suppression goes precisely against what they were trying to protect because it is a violation of our freedom of speech. If the school wishes to allow a prayer to be said over the PA system the school is not in violation of the Constitution unless they compel everyone in the stands to join in. So long as religion is not compulsory it is to be tolerated just as a religious peoples are expected to tolerate atheists.

Intolerance of religious expression and practice is not new to our country. What was traditionally more prevalent was animosity between practicing religious entities e.g. Catholics and Protestants. Prior to the 20th century religious freedoms were not argued between atheists and believers, but rather between opposing sects and denominations. (This assertion will be expanded upon in our next article discussing the origins and meaning of the second amendment.)

To demonstrate our country's long history of soul searching, compromise, and tolerance regarding the free exercise and practice of religion, I would like to quote a section Rhode Island's charter secured by colonists in 1663 from Charles the 2nd that endured until 1842, before and long after the Founders penned the amendments. It was, in fact, a charter the Founders used as a precedent for the Bill of Rights.

"No person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any difference in opinion in matters of religion so long as he does not actually disturb the civil peace of our said colony."

— Rhode Island Royal Charter of 1663

Now, people of faith are "quieted" because their freedom of expression is suppressed. Now, the people are "molested" because images of faith are forcibly removed from public buildings against the will of the public that fund those buildings. These are instances of expression and free speech, not forcible participation in an establishment of religion. When I drive down the expressway I may be offended at billboards I see, but I have the freedom to look away just as whoever erected the billboard has the freedom to put it up. The Founders believed that if tolerance and freedom prevailed the details would work themselves out. They further believed that the hallmark of freedom was to be left alone by the government and to be able to live your life however you choose so long as you do "not disturb the civil peace." Having a nativity scene or a posting of the 10 commandments at a county courthouse does not violate the first amendment. While such displays may offend some, they please others and in neither case do they "disturb the civil peace." In fact, such displays are protected by the First Amendment.

Again, the Founders believed that citizens of a free society must possess the right to free speech, but that right carries the implicit expectation that the citizen will use that right with judicious concern, and respect for the truth. Are those the qualities we see in our citizenry today, our media, and most of our politicians?

The natural progression of any argument in a free society is to eventually arrive at a place of frustration so acute that one person shouts at the other, "Shut up!." The first amendment cuts through the passion of both sides of an argument and reminds us that neither can be forced into silence.

Freedom Of Speech

"...Or Abridging The Freedom Of Speech, Or Of The Press..."

Ironically, no entity seems to be more out of touch with this section of the First Amendment than the press. Once, not too long ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. This action is of some importance to me as I routinely wrote editorials regarding political and social issues. On this particular occasion my article was edited or "abridged" in such a way that it made me appear to be upholding the opposite side of an issue I was actually opposing. Friends who read the article in the paper were baffled having known my position. I called the paper, spoke with the editor and read the section of my letter that had been omitted by his paper. He apologized, but did nothing to correct the error. The press, more specifically the media at the national level, have recently been accused of promoting "fake news." I'm sure you've all heard the term. What is of interest to me is the way the media defends itself, not by refuting the accusation with facts, but by saying that the US president is suppressing their right to a free press and free speech just because he frequently uses the term "fake news" in reference to their particular agency. However, this is not accurate. What the President is doing is disagreeing with certain venues of the media and certain media outlets. For example, calling CNN "fake news" is not suppressing CNN from reporting any news, fake or otherwise. It is the President fighting back, from his perspective, not forbidding the media from exercising its right to free speech. Again, ironically, it seems more like the media has a problem with the President exercising his right to free speech.

Burning Of The Reichstag

Here the German Parliament building (der Reichstag) is set ablaze, most likely, by the Nazi party in an attempt to make all other political entities illegal, thus denying the right of peaceable assembly of the people.
Here the German Parliament building (der Reichstag) is set ablaze, most likely, by the Nazi party in an attempt to make all other political entities illegal, thus denying the right of peaceable assembly of the people.

"...Or The Right Of The People Peaceably To Assemble, And To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances.

In March of 1933 The President Paul von Hindenburg signed the Reichstag Fire Decree and The Enabling Act. These measures were taken in response to the Reichstag (Germany's equivalent of our Capital building" being burned to the ground. They effectively dissolved all political parties in Germany and gave the party of the newly elected chancellor, Adolph Hitler, a lone presence in the nation. No longer could you legally belong to the Catholic Center Party, or the Communist Party or any of the 20 plus other parties in Germany at the time. All were disbanded. These acts were a dubious harbinger of what was to come and a seal on the likelihood that it was indeed Hitler himself and his Nazi's that set the building ablaze.

With the stroke of a pen the right to peaceful assembly and the right to redress grievances with the government was dissolved. This is how fragile a democracy can be. The ideas contained in the American Bill of Rights is not archaic, outdated, or the ramblings of drunken slave owners as revisionists might have us believe. Rather, it was the culmination of historical precedents brought into alignment by some of the most talented minds ever assembled in one place at one time. The genius of the Founders was not so much their ability to call principles of freedom out of thin air, but to draw from their deep, collective knowledge of governments throughout history. There was a movement during the 1770's and 1780's to move the country in the direction of ancient Roman law, indeed we still have many semblances of Roman antiquity with us today i.e. trial by jury, the Senate itself, not to mention the Roman collonades after which our capital city was modeled. However, what was intolerable regarding Roman law as far as the Founders were concerned was its insistence that government was above the law. In order to preserve a lasting freedom the rule of law must prevail, not the rule of monarchy that had brought so much misery to the world. The ruler, be it prime minister, chancellor, president et al, would forever more be under the law so far as the United States was concerned. And so George Washington would say upon hearing that his countrymen wanted to establish a monarchy with himself as the head,

"Never have I been more saddened than at the hearing that my countrymen would establish in me, that from which they have gained their freedom."


A tyrant cannot allow assemblies of people to gather together because he fears they may overthrow him, that that might be the purpose of their gathering, the construing of such plans. In a free society the ruler has no need for such worry because he knows his power and rule are limited. Only a tyrant would want otherwise. Our political structure, the Bill of Rights being the foundation, is constructed as a deterrent to tyrants by securing rights for the people against that which is the natural course of government- the expansion of its power and influence.

Please watch for my next article; a follow up to this one, a discussion on the meaning and history of the second amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Free Speech

Do You Believe Freedom Of Speech Should Be...

See results

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 

      8 days ago from Orange County California

      Leland

      Another good article.

      My first comment is on your poll.

      There is an implicit understanding, at least by me, that it is the SCOTUS that determines when a the freedom has transcended the constitution. Having said that I would also say that the SCOTUS has not done a good job deciding their cases.

      One of the reasons for that is the simple majority of the jurists in deciding a case. Of course that could decide some cases with a higher decision value of 6-3 or 7-2 or higher.

      My point is that deciding a case with a higher majority makes it a better decision. Why, because in a 5-4 decision how do you discard the knowledge and experience of 4 jurists. Even a 9-0 decision could be bad, but as the threshold of the majority goes up so does the decision.

      As far as the simple majority decision, it doesn't come from the constitution. The founders gave the congress the job of fleshing out the judicial branch.

      My last point is on the current value of the freedom of speech and expression.

      We have all heard the threshold to bring in the freedom as falsely yelling fire in a crowded room. We also know that the American Flag can be burned, as well as phrases like F..... the Flag.

      But in this century, the left has made the example of yelling "Fire" the threshold where freedom dies. They have been the English language filled with words that cannot be spoken, written or maybe even implied.

      The only reason that I think that even makes any sense is that "Fire" is now equivalent to any non PC word or phrases.

      So for example, the 'N' word is now verboten, and it is not protected by the 1st amendment. This is a chilling effect on that freedom. Why is that possible, because when some people hear someone using the 'N' they going to react the same way as if they were in crowded room and someone yells fire.

      The left has conditioned the country on their list of non protected speech, and the country reacts like a Pavlovian dog but instead of just salivating, they start to look for a rope and a tree to suspend it from. There is no judge, jury, or sheriff to stop them. It becomes mob violence of sorts, and in many cases real violence.

      Why is it OK to disrespect the flag of our country, but not people?

      They are only words, until someone decides to attach sticks and stones to them.

    • Leland Johnson profile imageAUTHOR

      Leland Johnson 

      5 months ago from Midland MI

      Benjamin- I am honored that you read and commented on my article. I know the Scots are a freedom loving people and I have several Scottish heroes, most dear to me is the minister Oswald Chambers.

      I share your concerns. The Founders of the US left our Constitution slightly malleable because of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights/Amendments. I think they knew that problems would arise that would need to be addressed by future generations and I think they knew they could not foresee every difficulty our people would face. They knew we, future generations, would have to possess the wisdom to figure out the solutions and we have the Constitution as a template for the progression and maintenance of liberty. Does the 2nd amendment clause regarding the citizen's right to bear arms mean I can have a cruise missile in my back yard? Does 1st amendment assuring the citizenry the right to free speech mean it is allowable to shout "fire" in a crowded theater? They didn't say. It is for us to sort out the meanings and applications to our times. The problem is, I don't like the way the sorting is working out. Free speech is routinely censored on social media sites and very obviously in our national media. Free speech means free speech for everyone. Our media is abusing their 1st amendment rights (freedom of the press) by not telling news stories with judicious regard and concern for the truth. They flood our channels with news stories that are actually editorials rather than unbiased information.

      Finally, yes I hope our Constitution is never repealed. With the stroke of a pen Germany lost all its civil rights under the very progressive Weimar Constitution. They allowed their freedom to be traded for the semblance of security, an illusion that would be shattered shortly thereafter.

      Thanks again for stopping by. I hope to hear from you again.

    • Benjamin McQuaid profile image

      Benjamin McQuaid 

      5 months ago from England, United Kingdom

      Leland,

      An interesting read and a topic that I feel passionately about. Here in the UK, we don't have a constitution that affords us complete freedom of speech. In fact, just recently, a Scottish comedian was charged with being 'grossly offensive' after teaching his dog to perform the Nazi salute in a satirical video. This happening frightens me because it could lead down a very slippery slope.

      In my opinion, freedom of speech is a must in the Western world. With so many differing opinions, removal of this freedom will quickly lead to a dictatorship. It is quite often the left that advocates against freedom of speech, but what they really want is the censorship of opposing opinions, something that would severely harm democracy.

      I hope for the sake of your country that the US never repeals its constitution. I believe that the people who want change to freedom of speech will soon experience the repercussions if it were to be taken away, especially if a government was elected that represented their opposing party.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)