{
wE'vE GOt IssuEs
}
wrIttEN by brEtt wALkEr
separation of
Because of this fight, some consider O’Hair, better: should they be? America has seen this
who died in 1995, to be the champion of the contention at play in full force since November
First Amendment, and others see her as the 4, 2008. Remember, it is a matter of neither
ChurCh
most hated woman in American history. Either establishing nor prohibiting the exercise of
and
way she was successful in her lobbying. In religion. Take, for example, political scientist
1963 the United States Supreme Court voted M.J. Sobran’s argument: Insisting that religious
8–1 in favor of O’Hair and her ideologies in people leave their religious convictions at
stAtE
the landmark case Murray v. Curlett. To get home when they go to vote is not a far cry from
around the letter of this law, many public school establishing national secularism, which is also
districts provide a “moment of silence” during against First Amendment rights. While we start
class hours wherein students may use this time getting down to the minutiae of this issue in the
the 2008 presidential campaign was to pray silently if they so choose. 21st century, who can legally say where the line
arguably the most exciting since 1960, when Another emotionally charged instance of should be drawn, and what should be allowed
John F. Kennedy narrowly defeated then–Vice interpreting the constitution recently made to influence your vote? Also, how deep should
President Richard Nixon. It has not been 50 news in Utah. American Atheists Inc. (founded the First Amendment dig?
years since the time when many Americans by Madalyn Murray O’Hair) attempted to sue Notice how tightly religion is woven into the
actually felt threatened by the prospect of the Utah Highway Patrol for its display of fabric of our society and, yes, government. Most
a Catholic president. The 2008 campaign crosses on state highways. The crosses had of the country has taken First Amendment–
was intense in a similar fashion: A woman, been erected to memorialize fallen officers. based legislation in stride. But it is still a
an African-American, a Mormon, a Baptist The judge allowed the crosses to remain, wily can of worms even in this comparatively
minister, and an aged former P.O.W. set a fire stating that they are a generally recognized secular society. What could go next? Swearing
under the pundits on every cable and network symbol of sacrifice and honor rather than that on a Bible/Qur’an/Torah in our courtrooms
news program. Reactions to these diverse of religious affiliation. It was another decision seems an obvious target. Removing official
labels exposed the best and worst of many in which once again led to the relief of some and placements of the phrases “In God We Trust”
this country. This became especially manifest to the chagrin of others. and “one nation under God” could be too. One
when citizens and commentators sized up Finally, one case in this continued battle for could then argue that we should order our
candidates’ religious loyalties. The nature of and against the secularization of America even nation’s churches to pay property taxes. Next
our society provides an explanation for this. breached the din of pop culture. It involved a bill we could abolish faith-based initiatives that
administer social welfare programs.
Built in to the First A mendment of our beloved
If these hotly debated issues ever
Constitution is the institutional separation of church and
clear out of the way, then we could
really dig deep and change even
state:
the dress of our nation’s judges and
“CONGrEss shALL MAkE NO LAw rEspECtING AN EstAbLIshMENt
graduates. After all, black robes are
Of rELIGION, Or prOhIbItING thE frEE ExErCIsE thErEOf . . .”
not just fun traditions; they are a
direct throwback to early religious
Freedom of religion is ingrained in us as co-sponsored by Georgia’s Lynn Westmoreland. garb. And the implications go on and on. The
American nationals. But although the majority In his effort to conserve our country’s mostly church and state issue is like a bad penny on
sees the necessity of separating religion from Christian legacy, he supported a bill that aimed our policy makers’ agenda.
government, the spectrum of interpretation is to physically display the Ten Commandments in There is no simple answer to this question,
wide. Since the adoption of the Constitution the House and the Senate. Unfortunately for him, nor is there concrete interpretation. The
in 1787, the question of secularization has Congressman Lynn Westmoreland got “nailed” real answer lies in you and your take on the
been pounded upon from nearly every angle. for not doing his homework. Comedian-cum- Constitution. You have to decide what you
People have spent great amounts of money, pundit Stephen Colbert asked him in a televised feel comfortable with. Unfortunately, the
manpower, and time lobbying and arguing interview to recite the Ten Commandments. Constitution isn’t blaringly clear on all details
about the legal reach of these few words in our College co-eds across America watched as of the issue, and therefore controversy often
First Amendment. Westmoreland struggled even to paraphrase ensues. But on the other hand, no one ever said
Americans are usually reminded of these three of them. The video of this uncomfortable that government “of the people, for the people
constitutional implications during religious and comedic exchange is still available at and by the people” would never be problematic
holidays when an arm of the federal, state, www.comedycentral.com. But let there be no or would provide for a perfectly harmonious
or local government inevitably puts up a mistake: this Georgia congressman and his legal society. That, however, does not leave you
decoration that causes some measure of public co-sponsors are not loners lobbying feebly to with an excuse not to take part in the process.
outcry. More commonly, there is outcry against bring the Ten Commandments to these types
what many consider long-standing violations of of venues. There are groups operating with
the Constitution. great amounts of faith and intelligence who
A historic instance of this was Madalyn work towards a tolerance of religious displays
Murray O’Hair’s infamous crusade during on public property.
the ’60s. She fought to abolish all prayer Will this argument ever end? Can the flood
and reading of holy texts in public schools. waters of total secularization be held back? Or
ELIZA / 48 ELIZA / 49
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80