Yes

by Jayson Jones

Created on: December 02, 2007

Any reading of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and/or the Bill of Rights, will make one thing abundantly clear. These men went to great pains to keep Religion out of Official documents. The closest they come to mentioning Religion links it to Nature. The "In God We Trust" on our money was added much later, and putting "Under God" was done in the 1950's, as I learned the Pledge of Allegiance without it and then had to consciously relearn it. Our Founding Fathers well knew the danger of mixing Religion and Governance; many had fled Europe because of Official Religious differences. They did not want any Church of England' creating difficulty for the Democracy they had just brought into being.

Seemingly, they felt that a person's beliefs were personal and privately held. To be sure, there is no wording in those documents prohibiting a religious person from holding Office, and logic should inform that they will make their decisions through the lens of their beliefs. There is no wording that prohibits the establishment of places of worship, nor the freedom to worship what ever, and how ever, one chooses. But the Establishment Clause does instruct that there will be no Official Religion, and, by default, no Religious use of Public land.

Public land is land held by the People in general. The People, have a variety of beliefs, and to allow one symbol of one belief is to open the door to all symbols of all beliefs. The all-inclusive is impossible to attain, so the reasonable person sees that the all-excluded is the only viable option. I used reasonable person' much as it is used in Law. People can dress and adorn themselves in a manner their beliefs dictate, and appear in public places if they wish. It is, after all, their body that is the religious billboard, not the public space they visit.

I can certainly see why we, as a People, would want the first Ten Amendments on our Court House walls, but I fail to see the relevance of the Ten Commandments to Jurisprudence. In fact, I absolutely do not want to use any Religious laws or rules in judging guilt or innocence. We are, supposedly, a Nation of Laws after all, not a Nation of Religious Laws. I do not want any Religious depictions on my town's Green area, nor other land held in trust for the People. I can not control what happens on Private property, that is up to the owner. I am aghast that our Public Airwaves are not considered Public Space, as other rented or leased Public Land is, but they are not, and many forget that they are actually Public Airwaves.

Lest one think that I am too hard on Religion when discussing whether or not there can be Public displays of Religious symbols, let me tell a little illustrative story. In Oregon, the compromise among the Congress Critters was that, rather than eliminate the Opening Prayer ceremony of the Legislature, it was more appropriate to rotate that duty equally among all Religions. Things went rather well until it came time for a Wiccan to give the Opening Prayer. Half the Congress Critters got up and walked out. So, will you please tell me how we can allow any government sanctioned Religious display, when the very people we entrust to write Law and wisely guide us are so narrow minded and hypocritical? Explain to me how and why one particular Religion is "acceptable" while another is not.

It should be as obvious to us now, as it was to those who Declared their Independence from England, fought a long and bloody War to secure that Independence, and wrote the first, and finest, Democracy into existence; Religion has no place in Official Governance, Official Policy, nor Publicly held Land, Buildings, or Monuments. To use an old, but still serviceably true, sayingFreedom of Religion should also be Freedom from Religion.

Learn more about this author, Jayson Jones.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.