russ_watters said:
The courts do not agree that this is a debateable issue, never have, and never will. The establishment clause is an iron-clad separation of church and state. Jefferson ought to know what the first amendment means - he wrote it. The fact that the words don't appear in the Constitution itself is a non sequitur smokescreen religious people like to use in an attempt to weaken it. Don't fall for the trick. Separation of church and state is explicitly included in the Constitution.
I agree that the courts do not consider it debatable anymore, and as an atheist, I'm glad for that. But it is naive to think that our basic rights are literally spelled out in a 230-year-old document. They are, and always have been, subject to interpretation. The end effect is that
we, the present-day citizens, own and design our rights, and it is our responsibility to defend them against tyranny. Surely the PATRIOT Act (and numerous acts of Congress in the prior 200 years) are sufficient evidence that our national government cannot be expected to defend them
for us.
Amendment I
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.
The key difficulties with the Establishment Clause are the precise, intended meanings of "respecting" and "establishment". A very loose interpretation might take "respecting" to merely mean "about", or "regarding", which would effect a prohibition on Congress making any laws that mention specific religions whatsoever. I'm fairly sure that is not the intent.
As far as I can tell, an "establishment of religion" is meant to mean a particular sect of religion. For example, Lutheranism, Hinduism, Mormonism, and Zoroastrianism are all establishments of religion. Then the interpretation rests on the meaning of "respecting". Lacking any other context (I'm no historian, and I haven't spent time to read all of the various Founders' letters), I would take "respecting" to mean, literally, "giving respect to", in an official capacity. That is, the Establishment Clause, on this interpretation, merely means:
"Congress shall make no law which gives any particular religion a higher official status than others, nor shall Congress make any law prohibiting the practice of any particular religion."
That is, that all religions should be treated equally by law, neither made into official religions, nor prohibited from being practiced.
A reasonable interpretation of this should indeed include a protection for atheists. But as evidenced by our current administration, we do not always have reasonable people in office. A common tactic by fundamentalist activists is to proclaim that atheism, not being a
religion, per se, should not be granted protections.
My main objection to the wording of the First Amendment is that I do not feel it is quite specific enough to absolutely preclude such an interpretation. The right to follow no religion at all should be made specifically clear, so that it is protected even if fundamentalists find their way into our higher courts.
