First amendment

Dear Mister Weinstein,

I think that we disagree about the meaning of the first amendment to the American constitution. I think that the two religious clauses of that amendment mean the following if, respecting, means, favouring or preferring, establishment, means, denomination or sect or society, religion, means, Christianity, free, means, unlimited or unrestricted, and, exercise, means, practise. The United States’ legislature may not legislate favouring or preferring a denomination or sect or society of Christianity, [more than any other Christian denomination or sect or society] nor stopping the unlimited or unrestricted practise of Christianity. (Some of those words are implied.)

Although the American Supreme Court does not agree with that, if I’m right about that the establishment clause prohibits congressional legislative denominational or sectarian favouritism pertaining to Christianity. And the free exercise clause bans congressional legislative stoppage of the unfettered practise of Christianity.

Practically what that means is that the United States’ congress may not make any law to tax the Presbyterian while not taxing the Methodists, to give an example.

If that is correct, we may post God’s ten commandments on public property, which is of course under God; public schools may have Bible reading; and children may pray Christian prayers in Jesus’ name in public school buildings during normal school hours, without any of those violating the constitution.

It also ought to be considered that the constitution, which is a law of men or creatures, is inferior to the law of God or the Creator.

Part of my concern is based partly on Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. If we don’t learn some lessons from that, you might consider II Kings 17.

Thanks for taking the time to read this if you did.

(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld),

I have to give you credit for coming up with one of the most creative, twisted, pious interpretations of the Establishment Clause that I have ever read…and I have heard many variations…but your choice of email address does say it all, “theocrat2”. Your interpretation is absolutely incorrect. Your spelling style hints that you may be a product of British upbringing, so it is unknown how long you have been acquainted with American history and law which may contribute to this completely bastardized interpretation of what freedom of religion means in this country.

We respect and defend your right to choose your beliefs, but it is clear that you have rationalized a way to declare that everyone else must believe as you do and practice your beliefs whether willingly or not. In all my years as a Christian I cannot remember one single passage where we are taught to use force to proselytize and spread the word of God. What you are suggesting is that Christ’s message is so weak that it is necessary to legislate Christianity as the law of the land. I take issue with that and encourage you to reflect on your understanding of what it means to live in a way that fits Matthew 5:16 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Living in this manner should attract followers who willingly come to Christ rather than having their faith dictated or legislated to them. The following is an excerpt from an excellent article that you will hopefully find enlightening and spiritually helpful:

“When Christians speak of God, we look first to the person of Jesus as the incarnation of God, the human face of God. Jesus did not run around trying to convert everyone to his religion. He reached out with compassion and understanding toward those who were outside his religion, and he treated them with love and respect.

[…]His attitude toward those of uncertain religious virtue was remarkably tolerant, outgoing and forgiving. In fact, the only people who seemed to rile him were those who were certain of their own goodness and tried to cast everyone else in the shadow of their own rightness. He saved his harshest words for the moralists.”

You can read the entire article here.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans respect freedom of religion and understand the Establishment Clause and embrace our fellow citizens regardless of their beliefs. How would you feel if a zealot of the Mormon faith, or strict Catholic, drew their own conclusions such as you have and then supported inserting their rituals into all aspects of life for all Americans? I am thinking you would fight their path to worship kicking and screaming.

May God grant you tolerance and true understanding of what it means to find peace on this earth in harmony with the diversity of all.

Leah L. Burton
Board Member, MRFF