Amendment I
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.
Now the first thing I want my readers to notice from the above statement is that the restrictions are on government not the people. The second is the wording , no law establishing, abridging, these are important words that seem to be misused today in many ways but I ask you this one question how is telling a child not to read a bible at school in any way have anything to do with establishing a religion if the child is reading to themselves? How about prohibiting the free exercise of religion, doesn’t the implication mean we can talk about our beliefs openly without government interference and when you couple the next line with the first or abridge freedom of speech it seems obvious?
Yet in many communities in this country our schools prohibit the reading of the bible (Prohibiting free exercise thereof), our government would have you believe that in no way can religion have anything to do with political choices (also prohibiting free exercise thereof) yet what the Constitution says is the government cannot establish a religion. That is to say our tax dollars have nothing to do with religion and all religions are tolerated as long as they work within the established laws of the land; i.e. they do not profess a concept like murdering or stealing from others.
I once thought the Constitution gave us a qualified freedom of speech but it does not, We must act within the law and that is true of our speech, simply so we do not cause harm to others and effect their civil liberties but that does not mean we cannot say anything we want to say, no matter the intelligence or stupidity of the statement. We cannot say fire in a crowded room because if people run they may get hurt but if no one ran you have not broken a law. You will be prosecuted for the harm you cause but that is the rule of law to keep us all safe and introduce a modicum of safety to our country, it is not meant to curtail your freedom of speech.
Now peaceably assemble that is interesting since we do it often but very few people understand this concept, people peaceably assemble each time they go to church or gather for a political rally as long as laws are not broken which implies you are not taking away others rights you can assemble and talk about anything you would like, remember those who do not agree have this right also and can assemble right next to you if they are not causing a fight. Now the tea party has never had an incident when assembling or a law broken to include cleaning up after themselves can the occupy movement say the same?
How about a redress of grievances, this is interesting in that implies you can tell the government if you do not agree with it and in this nation you can. This is a God given right and as long as you are following the previous rule of law no one can do anything about your opinion, with the exception of not listen to it. Now I want to ask my readers has this administration ever followed the precepts put forth in this amendment, the first amendment or have they done everything they can to make our citizens believe they do not have these rights?
These rights all outlined in 44 words, all God given rights to everyone and yet how many of us Americans do not understand this Amendment, an Amendment we should be shouting from our rooftops as it is the basis of everything we as Americans believe in.