Editorial: The point of the First Amendment

‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Lots of people — lots of Christians — have been shouting about their First Amendment rights of late. So we think it bears a moment to consider what the First Amendment means for Christians and for Christian journalists.

Related: Culture wars turn classrooms into battlefields

Entire courses are devoted to understanding those 45 words. We will not cover all the bases in a short editorial. But a few points merit a reminder:

1. The religion part has two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

The first essentially means the government cannot establish any official religion. Nor can the government act in a way that smacks of endorsing one religion over another. The founders were not far removed from abuses of official religion in jolly old England. They wanted no part of it here. They varied in their level of piety and the nature of their theology, but they didn’t want the government getting in the middle of either.

The free exercise part means the government can’t keep any of the free and independent religions that spring up under such a system from doing their religious thing however they please. Every religion is free from government interference, oversight, nitpicking.

Listen to Chris McCurley, preaching minister for the Walnut Street Church of Christ in Dickson, Tenn., discuss a recent IRS policy change that gives churches more leeway to engage in political speech in Episode 132 of The Christian Chronicle Podcast.

2. The rest of the amendment covers forms of expression: speech, press, assembly and petition.

Thomas Jefferson and the rest sometimes bemoaned the early American press, but the amendment they wrote stood between their better angels and their political dysfunction. It was by design a bulwark against the intrusion of the powerful or the majority set on depriving the minority from expressing their views.

Thus, the government can’t tell people nor the press what they can and cannot say, what side they must take in the argument of the day or what stories may be reported. People may assemble to protest so long as they do it peacefully, and petition the government for change when they want change.

3. Over the years, the courts have established a few qualifications and exceptions.

Time, place and manner restrictions can legally prevent protesters from shutting down a freeway. The government can’t stop a preacher from loudly evangelizing on the sidewalk but can keep him from doing it at 2 a.m. Authorities can protect children’s lives from being endangered by the religious activities of their parents — but can’t stop parents from engaging in those activities.

All of the above is important to us at The Christian Chronicle. First Amendment protections support what we do and who we are. And it only works if every religion and every journalist enjoy the same freedoms and protections. Fervently claiming First Amendment protection for our own religious practice and our own political expression is reasonable, even essential.

“Freedom is not freedom if it only belongs to those who agree with me.”

But Christians who prefer a system that would deprive others whose views they find offensive or sacrilegious miss the point: Freedom is not freedom if it only belongs to those who agree with me.

There’s a name for that system. It’s called tyranny.

CHERYL MANN BACON is a Christian Chronicle contributing editor who served for 20 years as chair of the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication at Abilene Christian University. Contact [email protected].

Filed under: Christians and government Church and state Constitution Editorial Establishment clause First Amendment Free exercise clause Freedom of religion National Opinion Religion and politics religious freedom Top Stories