tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1750536989922769009.post1992853153273354571..comments2023-11-05T03:33:36.220-08:00Comments on The Metaphysical Peregrine: Religious Intolerance From AtheistsSteven Dexterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15299032034330006689noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1750536989922769009.post-35937889463498026752012-08-05T15:23:23.194-07:002012-08-05T15:23:23.194-07:00Why some would direct their ire at someone like th...Why some would direct their ire at someone like the folks at FFRF who seek to uphold the Constitution, rather than those flouting it is not apparent. It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class and principals hanging banners in schools), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.<br /><br />A word should be added about the common canard that this is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; each of us has that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that–REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended or whether a majority approves or disapproves. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives–small government conservatives–should appreciate from a political standpoint as well. While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with “standing” (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government’s failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.com