Thursday, February 21, 2008

Constitute This.

From a discussion that ensued on SM:

"i going to bow out of this debate with you b/c either you're completely ignorant about const law and you're just trying to fake it, or you're not ignorant and just weird. i mean, "congress" does not apply to the states, the first ammedment says nothing about free expression on govt property? this is just basic stuff which i'd be happy to elaborate on but you don't seem to really want to learn, as your weird exchange with rob demonstrates. "

Constitute this.
Alright. So let me be upfront, I have no formalized law credentials, most of my legal insight has come from watching movies and self-study, and discussion with law professionals.

Part of my "keep it real" persona is to state what I do not know.

I asked for an example of a state government enacted-law being overturned or challenged within a state court system because they infringed on freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution. What I got in return was a Supreme Court document, which by my understanding, is a federal court.

On this I may be "dead wrong" however, it wasn't clearly explained in the example presented.

But even if the state takes the place of "Congress" as stated in the 1st amendment, barring someone from saying "Merry Christmas" or making any references to religion in a gov't/public workplace is not infringing on free speech or curtailing "free expression" because it's speech that if allowed could lead to preferential treatment and understanding of one religion over the other. US history is replete with examples where 'harmful' speech has been disallowed.

It all depends on context. if a person says "Merry Christmas" to a co-worker he knows is Christian, in passing through the hallway, it's probably not a big deal, in the sense of, it doesn't constitute "establishment of a religion."

If one of the groups has a meeting, let's say, and the boss says to his team, "Have a Merry Christmas everyone!" while he didn't mean anything negative by it, it could distance those people who do not celebrate Christmas, and, at its root, is a religious holiday. Anecdotally, I remember while growing up, wanting a tree, presents, etc... Why? Not because of some deep seated desire to celebrate the religious holiday of Christmas, or to be Christian, rather just to "fit in" We should be living in a society where no one feels they have to partake in someone else religion in order to feel comfortable. It's the bedrock principle of a gov't not establishing one religion as superior to the other.

This is similar to the case of an RA in a state school running Bible classes from the dorm. The RA is in a position of authority, and generally a point of contact for incoming freshman to a new school. Given the nature of what a religion is, and its purpose and usage in society, someone in a position of authority, using state resources to show preference to one religion over another is ultimately not what the constitutional architects wanted.

Now while separation of church and state is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is a statement made by Thomas Jefferson, one of the constitution's architects in reference to the 1st amendment clause barring Congress from establishing a religion.

So, as I see it, clamping down on behaviors which could be interpreted as preference for one religion over another in a gov't work place is completely in line with the 1st amendment's call for "no establishment of religion." Separation of church and state is something they obviously believed in, and intended on being upheld.

Secondly, calling it "a war on Christmas" is just plain stupid, and also clear evidence of a Christian-centric mindset. For, if it is indeed a "War" on anything, it's a war on all religions, not just Christmas.

And using free speech to defend it, is again a huge stretch, as the free speech clause at its root exists to make sure minority voices in a debate or exchange of ideas, are not suppressed. From a practical point of view, Christmas will not be "forgotten" or "mistreated" because gov't employees are unable to say it while in the workplace.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

"I asked for an example of a state government enacted-law being overturned or challenged within a state court system because they infringed on freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution. What I got in return was a Supreme Court document, which by my understanding, is a federal court."

you didn't ask for a state ruling, you asked for case. you got a federal ruling b/c only the federal courts interpret the US constitution. Anyway, for a variety of reasons, including the 14th amendment, congress means state legislators as well and the bill of rights is generally applied to the states, as you seem to now realize.

Anonymous said...

"barring someone from saying "Merry Christmas" or making any references to religion in a gov't/public workplace is not infringing on free speech or curtailing "free expression" because it's speech that if allowed could lead to preferential treatment and understanding of one religion over the other."

prior restraint. PR is extremely frowned upon in the US constitutional tradition b/c its an egregious form of censorship. see nixon vs. nytimes (pentagon papers) for its application to free press or cantwell vs. connecticut (i think) for freedom of religion.

basically you can't ban something b/c it may become illegal speech, you have to wait until it actually does. so i can't ask the govt to ban you from sepia mutiny b/c you might libel me, i have to wait until you actually do, b/f taking legal action.

likewise, saying merry chrismas in the workplace may lead to an establishment of religion (if its a state owned office) or to a civil rights violation in private office, but you have to wait until it does b/f you take legal action. you can't simply ban b/c it might.

so once you get tho the point that only christians are promoted in the workplace, you can then take action. until then, saying "merry Christmas" is constitutionally protected.

in general, preventive actions are not allowed.