The First Amendment is neither Christian nor secular
2024-07-30
The following letter was published in the magazine Free Inquiry, Volume 44, Issue 5, August/September 2024.
Cette lettre a été publiée dans la revue Free Inquiry, vol. 44, no 5, août/sept. 2024.
In her editorial in Free Inquiry vol.44 no.3, Robyn E. Blumner quotes the Congressional Freethought Caucus (CFC) which accuses Speaker Mike Johnson of “distorting the meaning of the Establishment Clause.” This is undoubtedly true, but unfortunately the CFC itself engages in similar distortion in the same sentence when it refers to the “constitutional separation of church and state.” To the best of my knowledge, the principle of religion-state separation appears nowhere in the US Constitution. It certainly does not appear in the First Amendment.
As Shadia Drury stated in the very pages of your magazine (FI vol.32 no.3), “The establishment clause is not an endorsement of secularism but of nonsectarianism.” It states only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” which implies only religious neutrality, preventing the establishment of a state religion. Thus, religions may interfere in state affairs provided that no one religion is given preferential treatment. This is all well and good, but it is a far cry from religion-state separation. Furthermore, the Amendment’s prohibition of any limit on religious expression is far too sweeping. Why should religious expression in particular enjoy constitutional protection? There is no such protection for expression which is scientific, musical, political, etc.
The bottom line is this: the First Amendment is neither Christian nor secular. It implements only partial secularism, while granting a major privilege to religious expression. No wonder Christian fanatics like Johnson are able to distort it to their advantage.
David Rand
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Click to enlarge
Next blog: The Tedious Conformism of Toula Drimonis