This page was last updated on December 22, 2011.
Don’t force your beliefs on others; Mark Hogan; Beaver County Times; December 21, 2011.
Previous letters from Mr. Hogan I critiqued are here, here, here, here, and here. Mr. Hogan wrote four other letters I did not critique.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“No one is trying to stop anyone from having and enjoying Christmas. We are a country of extraordinarily rare religious freedoms. You may put up any displays of this religion on your property or any other non-governmental associated private property you have permission to do so.”
[RWC] Let’s start with what the U.S. Constitution says about “religious freedoms.” The Constitution mentions religion only twice. Article VI (Debts, Supremacy, Oaths), clause three says “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There are three points to be made here. First, the First Amendment specifically says “CONGRESS …,” making no mention of state or local governments. The 10th Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Since the Constitution doesn’t prohibit individual states from sponsoring religions, technically states are free to sponsor religions. I believe state-sponsored religions would be horribly wrong, but the Constitution doesn’t prohibit it. Some states still had official religions even after ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Article 1, Section 3 (Declaration of Rights - Religious Freedom) of the PA Constitution is similar to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Though there were ongoing efforts to undermine the idea “Congress” really meant “Congress,” the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education finished the job. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.” Agree with it or not, there is no way you can come to this conclusion from reading the Constitution. The decision is a clear example of legislating from the bench. Those who agree with this decision use the 14th Amendment for support. You likely won’t be surprised to learn seven of the Everson justices were nominated by FDR and the remaining two by President Truman. During this time, Democrats had an overwhelming majority in the Senate.
Second, even if you accept “Congress” really means all levels of government, a lot of us seem to forget the “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” portion of the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn’t say “except ‘on government property or any property associated with government.’” It appears many people believe unless government is hostile to religion, the absence of hostility amounts to government support.
Third, how is allowing someone to exercise their religion “on government property or any property associated with government” “an establishment of religion?” If that is the case, shouldn’t we ban religious services held on military bases, aircraft carriers, et cetera? What about the prayer beginning every session of Congress? Except for 1855-1861, there’s been a Chaplain of the House since 1789. Likewise, the Senate has a chaplain. At the end of the chant beginning each Supreme Court session, the Marshal says, “God save the United States and this honorable court.”
“The only restriction at all in place is that you can’t display your faith on government property or any property associated with government. That’s true of any religion you might have. It’s the same for everyone. That’s not only because that wouldn’t be fair to people of other beliefs that reside under that government, but because our original politicians had seen that government supported religion can oppress people of other faiths and so made it the law of the land.”
[RWC] As noted above, there is no constitutional “restriction … in place that you can’t display your faith on government property or any property associated with government.”
“Don’t take this fairness towards people of other faiths and legal requirement for those that don’t be any restrictions on your right and ability to worship as you chose everywhere else.”
[RWC] What the heck does this sentence say?
“So, enjoy your Christmas without forcing your local governments to waste hard-earned tax dollars fighting our Constitution to impose your beliefs on others through them. Be very grateful we live in such a country and be happy!”
[RWC] The logical extension of what Mr. Hogan wrote here is it’s illegal to say “God bless you” to someone when they sneeze when both of you are “on government property or any property associated with government.” If not, why not? What about radio stations? After all, since its use requires a license, the radio spectrum must considered “government property or any property associated with government.”
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.