The U.S. Constitution Allows Religious Symbols on Public Property
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits laws “respecting an establishment of religion” but it does not prohibit religious displays—Ten Commandments displays, crosses, Stars of David, nativity scenes, etc.—on public property. The primary reason there is a public discussion about religious symbols in public places is that various courts have for the past several decades ordered some of these symbols or displays (but not all) off public grounds as a constitutional violation. But an examination of the First Amendment reveals that the law requires no such religious purge.
The last time “We the People” ratified a constitutional provision about religion “we” said, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That was in 1791. Those words of the First Amendment have never been amended. According to Article VI of the Constitution, whatever we ratify into the Constitution is “the supreme law of the land.” The judicial oath in Article VI requires judges to be “bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.” Thus, the words of the Constitution are the “supreme law” and, not surprisingly, should decide the question of whether religious symbols run afoul of that law.
Symbols from the Ten Commandments to nativity scenes have been challenged in courts and almost invariably the sole constitutional argument proposed is that the challenged display violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Just as invariably, however, the offended plaintiffs do not argue that the religious symbol violates the words of the First Amendment; rather, they argue that the symbol is impermissible under one of a number of judicial “tests”—e.g., the Lemon Test, the Endorsement Test, the Coercion Test, the Neutrality Test—which each contain multiple factors or prongs derived from one or more previous court opinions and that (conveniently) must be applied by a judge or judges on a case-by-case basis rather in a consistent, predictable, repeatable manner. The only commonality shared by all said judicial “tests” is that none are consistent or even attempt consistency with the words of the law: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” To judge a religious display based on a judicial test is to consult what is not the law to determine unlawfulness.
The first word—“Congress”—should give the reader of the Establishment Clause pause in that it is the only entity of government expressly restrained by the text from making a “law respecting an establishment of religion.” No other branch, such as the executive or judicial, or any other government level, such as the state or local, are in view (though all state constitutions now prohibit similar laws). Although the Supreme Court has “incorporated” the provisions of the First Amendment to apply to state and local governments through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, the text of the Constitution does not support such legal shoe-horning. Regardless, defeating the “incorporation doctrine” is not necessary to this argument, as an application of the rest of the Clause quickly demonstrates.
The action prohibited by the Establishment Clause is a “law,” not a mere proclamation, resolution, judicial opinion, or public monument or display. Finally, the law prohibited is one “respecting an establishment of religion.” An establishment of religion is an official, government-sanctioned denomination, where a particular church affiliation is supported by tax dollars and enjoys legal benefits that other denominations do not. A majority of the states that ratified the Establishment Clause, in fact, had their own state established religions (e.g., Anglicanism in Virginia), and did not care to be in competition with a national establishment that might conflict with their own. Thus, unless Congress has passed a law that establishes a particular official religion, then no violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has occurred.
The plain words of the First Amendment are still in effect—and still the supreme law of the land. However much one may feel offended or elated by seeing a religious symbol displayed on public property, and however much one may wish such symbols to be unconstitutional, the feelings of a judge or a plaintiff should not dictate legality (or illegality) in a country that is supposed to be governed by the rule of law and not the rule of man.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Aw, this was a really nice post. In thought I would like to put in writing like this additionally taking time and actual effort to make a very good article but what can I say I procrastinate alot and on no account seem to get something done. Fioricet cheap online hijack electrodesiccation Cheap cialis online dyspneic
I have found that most people that are offended by symbols are narrow minded. They have to be stupid to be offended by a cross or other symbol on public property. I am not Jewish, but I don't have a heart attack because I pass a Star of David. I am not offended by any symbol. That is for narrow minded people that think they are better than anyone else.
"An establishment of religion is an official, government-sanctioned denomination, where a particular church affiliation is supported by tax dollars and enjoys legal benefits that other denominations do not."
So, pretty much the Constitution is violated when state and federal employees have paid time off on Christian holidays... that's what that means.
yes. As I stated above, Christian holidays ought not be "national" holidays. The "nation" is composed of many more categories of beliefs and practices than simply christian. Federal sponsorship of narrowly-focused religious holidays are inappropriate. Government employees ought to be allowed vacation leave or personal holidays if they wish, but official recognition of specific religions unbalanced and unfair representation by government.
You both missed the point of the whole article it seems. I say that because you're not addressing anything actually in the article, you're just presenting the same old trite, inaccurate baloney.
This article presents an excellent argument for the government to keep it's nose out of things it has no business in and is restricted by law from meddling with. If you're going to claim even further restrictions are warranted then you missed the point.
This isn't so much about religion as it is Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and the breakdown of "government of the people, by the people and for the people".
It's interesting that you would pick Christian Holidays as your target, being as Christmas has been so thoroughly secularized as to be meaningless to anyone but a Christian except as an excuse to get some paid time off and party in the middle of winter. Easter always falls on a Sunday when people are generally off work anyway, especially public sector employees except emergency services. Those are the only two holidays that are arguably purely Christian in nature. Even the word "holiday" comes from the words "Holy Day", so by your logic NO ONE should have any kind of holiday at all.
The fact that your dog-in-the-manger approach to your hatred of things Christian advocates that there are a group of people who should not be allowed to enjoy time off with their families during the Christmas/New Years Holiday season betrays your general disregard for those people and their families. I hardly think they would appreciate your efforts to deny them what everyone else has be they Christian or otherwise.
No part of the Constitution of the United States of America was ever intended to have the effect you're advocating. The Constitution must legally be interpreted by the meaning and intent under which it was written at the time it was written, that's the law. You are attempting to add meaning and intent that was never there and should not be considered by any sane person as applicable.
We've lost enough freedoms already, we don't need to lose any more freedoms to satisfy your loathing of other people's religions.
Today our country is suffering because of American History ignorance; the lack of knowledge, education,and experience. This is where our problem lies as to whether or not religious symbols should be allowed on Public Property. The rule of law is the rule of discipline. Law is used as the rod of correction.
My opinion has no value whatsoever.Facts and evidence produce truth. If you are really interested in finding the answer to whether or not religious symbols should be allowed on Public Property please read-- Fundamental Agreement or Original Constitution of the Colony of New Haven, June 4, 1639 written in the Avalon Project under the 17th century. This is from Yale Law School--The Lillian goldman Law Library. After you read it--send it to to the Supreme Court Justices so they can receive some education and knowledge.
These forefathers formed a divine Providence. They formed one nation under God and this is in the law books prove it.It proves that our government was formed, created and made according to the mind of God. Read it--see it for yourselves.When you are done reading that, go to, Mayflower Compact:1620--there you will see more as to how our government was framed according to God. These are truths--they aren't opinions.
The men purposed in their hearts to make a government after the likeness of God's customs, manners, and ways. Unity with God is the perfection of all things--even a perfect government. Where did the divine Providence go to? This is what our forefathers formed. Ignorance is changing the divine Providence Form of government that our forefathers fought and died for. Religious symbols?? People let's start putting them everywhere. Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. We have a God given right to display religious symbols to prove to all that we are one Nation UNDER GOD. These articles prove that God was in control of forming our government in the beginning. Read the facts, evidence, and truth and weep!!!
Maybe people ought to read the legal document called Frame of government, dated May 5, 1682, for Pennsylavia written by then governor, William Penn. this is how government is supposed to be framed.
Article XXXIV "That all Treasures, Judges, Masters of the rolls, sherriffs, Justices of the Peace, and other officers and persons whatsoever, relating to courts, or trials of causes or any other service in the government; and all members elected to serve in province Council and General Assembly, and all that have right to elect such Members, shall be such as possess faith in Jesus Christ, and that are not convicted of ill fame, or unsober and dishonest conversation, and that are of one and twenty years of age, at least; and that all such so quailtied, shall be capable of the said several employments, and privileges, as aforesaid.
Article XXXV "That all persons living in this province, who confess and acknowledge the one and Almighty God, to be the Creator, Upholer and Ruler of the world; and that hold themselves oblidged in conscience to live peaceable and justly in civil society, in on ways, be molested, prejudiced for their religious PERSUASION, OR PARCTICE, in matterds of faith and worship, nor shall they be compelled, at any time, to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever.
Article XXXVI That, according to the good example of the primitive Christians, and the case of the creation, every first day of the week, called the Lord's day, people shall abstain from their common daily labout, that they may the better dispose themselves to worship God according to their understanding.
Yes Religious symbols should be on every government owned property.