Christine O'Donnell and the First Amendment

In the title-linked article, Ken Paulson, the President of the First Amendment Center, says, "Here's a quick take on what the First Amendment says -- and doesn't say:

Keeping government out of religion and religion out of government is a core principle of the First Amendment. The first 16 words say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means government can't limit our personal faith or favor one religion over others. It also means that creationism cannot be taught in America's public schools."

Now when I read those first 16 words, I have to interpret them. And people disagree in their interpretations. That's why the Supreme Court isn't unanimous all the time; their interpretations of the Constitution differ. I tend to agree with Paulson's first interpretation, that "government can't limit our personal faith or favor one religion over others." But even that becomes quite impossible, for religion is not merely a part of one's life; oftentimes, and rightly so, it is one's life. When we talk about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and even atheism, etc., since they make up the majority of religions in our country, we assume that the things those religions have in common are acceptable for government to "favor." For example, all of those religions - even atheism - have in common a teaching prohibiting murder. I realize that a proper definition of murder ought to be given in a debate format, but here, just let it be "unjust killing of another human." When our government makes a law prohibiting murder, it is favoring these religions over, say, some obscure form of a minority cannibalistic religion, which may uphold murder for the sake of one's appetite.

Now I realize that there aren't many cannibals in the U.S., but the point is clear. The foudning documents of our nation speak to issues of morality, which are nothing if not religious, and that's why I strongly disagree with Paulson's second interpretation above. He says, "It also means that creationism cannot be taught in America's public schools." Spelling and Mathematics may not be matters of morality. They are simply practical facts and proven formulas. And the facts of history are not matters of morality, but the interpretation of history can be a moral indoctrination. So when public school teachers fail to explain different interpretations of the facts, especially of history, the government is in fact in that moment favoring one religion over another. If the government teaches by way of implication that there is no God (or at least that the God of the Bible is a liar), then the government is exalting atheism over Christianity. It's the same as when the prohibition of murder exalts the majority religions over the minority ones.

Later in the article, Paulson says, "The separation of church and state means that teachers in public schools can't teach their faith to their students. Public schools are government bodies and teachers are their employees, so the restrictions of the First Amendment apply. But teachers can teach about religion. Faith and history are deeply intertwined, and students should understand the diversity of beliefs in the world today."

I applaud Paulson here, as he acknowledges the point I just made. "Faith and history are deeply intertwined, and students should understand the diversity of beliefs in the world today." In other words, Mr. Government, don't indoctrinate against any one religion; don't indoctrinate towards any one religion. Outside of spelling and math, I'm not sure it's possible. Teach creation and evolution; let the students decide. They'll side with the truth.

Abandon public schools and find the private school that teaches what you believe. And demand that the government help you do that with vouchers or by reducing your property taxes, the majority of which go to public education.