The Glass Darkly

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Public Policy and Law - the 1st Amendment

There are a few issues in government and education I have encountered upon my return from overseas which have motivated me to study more to understand the arguments. For example, it's not hard to get me on a band wagon against No Child Left Behind policies.

Since I started this post weeks ago now, I should say, the other week I had a conversation with some moms who are frustrated "for" their children who are taking PSSA tests this week. Actually, I think most children are fine with it; I wonder if parents get more stressed than their children believing that the tests are indicators of how "good/smart/successful" their children are, and even worse, how good/bad their teachers are! I believe the current arguments being used to support standardized testing and the consequencial policies on the schools are, in the end, actually damaging to our public school systems. But this is just a sidebar to my thoughts at the moment.


Actually what I am wallowing through at the moment is the First Amendment, the foundation of our democracy and the most beloved of all the amendments. In it we find the federal government giving us the right to free speech, the right to free press, the right to assemble and the right to petition the government concerning grievances. But most pressing in my study right now is the first line which guarantees our religious freedom.

I get frustrated at the various ways I have heard this part of the first amendment interpreted depending on who is doing the interpreting, namely, Christians, the ACLU, politicians or those opposed to religion altogether. Mostly we hear this in terms of "separation of church and state." It is deliniated in the Establishment and Free-exercise Clauses which basically say, keep religion out of the public domain and keep the government out of the church. Sometimes I wonder if people understand the value of these clauses.

In the circles where I find myself right now, I have mostly heard people complain that the government wants to remove religion from the public domain (examples: manger scenes, Ten Commandments, prayer in school). When Christians get upset about what the government does they often point to the need for Christian government leaders who stand on Christian values. I have heard Christians say that our government was founded on Christian principles to which we need to return. In this way they seem to promote an intertwining of government and religion or faith. Ironically, however, many of those same Christians are happy to claim tax exemptions for church and religious institutions. This statute is based on the separation of church and state, or the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

Another point I can't help but hear in this is that some people who say they want religious freedom, deep-down are meaning it only for Christians. All other religions are suspect or cults. They seem to imply that the first pilgrims came here for "Christian religious freedom" so that's what religious freedom really means. The government, then, should favor or trust or maybe even promote the Christian faith, but distrust or wage war against the "evil" Islamic faith or protect us from the animistic faiths or "New Age" influences.

In our church right now we are talking about how we should listen to the voices from the past, those who were closer to the start of the church because they will or should have a better interpretation of what is important in our worship and church functions. In the same way, I have found the voices of those who helped to write the first amendment helpful in my own understanding of it. James Madison was one voice I found very insightful. I'll save his voice for another post, since it has taken me too long already to finish this post. But his commentary has been extremely enlightening for me in this study.

8 Comments:

  • It's amazing that you chose to post this now, because in my Constitutional Issues class we have been studying freedom of speech, press, and religion. This week is religion, so we have been diving into the First Amendment and the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. We're reading the Supreme Court cases and that defined our interpretation of the First Amendment and the Congressional hearings following them. I would love to hear what you've learned about this sometime. I'm also leading a panel discussion about prayer in public schools tomorrow in my speech class, completely unrelated...what timing! What types of materials have you been studying to learn about this?

    By Blogger Karissa, at 12:47 PM, March 28, 2007  

  • Karissa,

    How interesting! I am sure you are going more in-depth than we are. My prof is a lawyer and said that those who study law can do a whole semester just on one aspect of the constitution. For the most part, we are just doing an overview of the cases which apply to education in some way plus all the basics of judicial review, case analysis and the constitution itself.

    In addition to Lexis-Nexis and FindLaw on the internet, we are using Michael Kauffman's text, Education Law, Policy and Practice. It is great, giving condensed versions of the cases and then notes at the end.

    We had our mid-term exam last night and I am amazed how much ground we covered in such a short time. I had to present an analysis of the Lemon v Kurtzman case for last week. It was good since religion was our biggest unit so far :-) Helped me on the exam -

    Hope your presentation goes well!

    By Blogger Gecko Girl, at 9:58 AM, March 29, 2007  

  • My only real issue with my son taking PSSA tests is that they required him to have a water bottle with him the whole time so he would remain hydrated. The presumption is that he will then focus better and perform to a higher standard if his brain is alert.

    On normal school days, they are given one 30 second drink break and hopefully a carton of milk at lunch, otherwise they aren't allowed to take breaks if they are thirsty.

    Hmmm....how well does he do on a normal day when he's dehydrated and not fully alert? I guess that doesn't matter! LOL

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:03 PM, March 29, 2007  

  • Oh, that was me...Audrey

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:04 PM, March 29, 2007  

  • Yes, the water thing has been an issue in our home too, especially with my daughter who would go all day with nothing if I didn't insist she drink what I give her! I say this, even though neither of my children have had to take those tests yet. But I do wonder if her difficulty focusing may stem partly from that issue. You brought up an important point!

    By Blogger Gecko Girl, at 12:18 PM, March 29, 2007  

  • Have you ever read anything by Stephen L. Carter? Last I knew he was a professor of law at Yale University. He is among the nation's leading experts on constitutional law. A Christian. In "The Culture of Disbelief" he writes extensively on the first amendment. Her is an excerpt from that section:

    "Simply put, the metaphorical separation of church and state originated in an effort to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion. The religion clauses of the First Amendment were crafted to permit maximum freedom to the religious. In modern, relgiously pluralistic America, where, as we have seen, the religions play vital roles as independent sources of meaning for their adherents, this means that the government should neither force people into sectarian religious observances, such as classroom prayer in public schools, nor favor some religions over others,as by erecting a créche paid for with public funds, nor punish people for their religiosity without a very strong reason other than prejudice. It does not mean, however, that people whose motivations are religious are banned from trying to influence government, nor that the government is banned from listening to them. Understanding this distinction is the key to preserving the necessary separation of church and state without resorting to a philosophical rhetoric that treats religion as an inferior way for citizens to come to public judgment." (105-106)

    I thought Karissa's description of the witness for peace that took place in Washington D.C. the other weekend was an excellent example of the spirit and the approach that is needed from Christians as we attempt to make our witness in the public square.

    By Blogger Brian Miller, at 1:43 PM, March 29, 2007  

  • Wow, Lemon is a tough one! In class today my prof had us present a case for or against the constitutionality of the state of Virginia giving EMU money to help build a new Science Center (a hypothetical situation). Naturally, my side was unlucky enough to have to argue that the grant is constitutional, so we just framed our case around Lemon's three-prong test. Pretty sure we would have lost though. Oh well:) The First Amendment is a fascinating thing indeed...

    By Blogger Karissa, at 8:53 PM, March 29, 2007  

  • Actually, Karissa, in today's world, you might have won your case as, in the last 10 years, Lemon has been less strictly applied. As long as you can prove a strongly secular purpose in your application, they can decide if it will promote religion or not. And the excessive entanglement prong is not really used now since the Agostini v Felton case of 1997.

    Brian, Carter does a much better job at saying what I have wanted to say for a long time now. Thank you!

    By Blogger Gecko Girl, at 12:39 AM, April 01, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home