The Free Exercise of Religion in America

Fightin Words ^ | November 30, 2009 | Walter Scott Hudson

[Walter Scott Hudson]

If one examines the Courts opinion in the 1962 case and cross-references it with modern arguments by groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation, they will find an argument for implied compulsion where no actual compulsion exists. As articulated by Justice Douglas in his 1962 opinion, “It is said that the element of coercion is inherent in the giving of this prayer… [students in a classroom are] in a sense a “captive” audience.” This view resonates rhetorically with the contrived idea the First Amendment is intended to protect people from religion, rather than its explicit intent to protect the free exercise of religion. It is argued, even though they are not required to participate, the mere presence of a religious exercise in the vicinity of those not participating carries an “element of coercion” which makes it unconstitutional. ... Prayer in school is offensive to those who would not participate, we are told, because of the peer pressure it creates to conform to a majority which does. This is the “element of coercion” to which Douglas referred. What the Vitale case and subsequent laws and decisions based on it have done is elevate such peer pressure to a level on par with state compulsion under penalty of law. This is an absurd notion which ought to have been rejected on its face. The overall quality of our academic, intellectual, and governmental pursuits is adversely affected by a failure to maintain common sense distinctions between social pressure and state compulsion. The Founding Fathers clearly understood those distinctions and did not let their prohibition on the compulsion through force of law intrude upon their right to compel through example.

[IronJack]

If peer pressure constitutes a de facto coercion to embrace a religion, and thereby violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment, then forcing landlords to rent their property to homosexuals UNDER THREAT OF LAW clearly coerces Christians into abandoning a dearly held religious principle, in direct violation of the free exercise clause.

First Amendment protections: they’re not just for the Godless anymore.

[Louis Foxwell]

Thank you for the timely post.
The distinction between social pressure and government compulsion is fundamental to basic tenents of freedom.
I have the absolute responsibility, according to the principles of my faith, to vigorously create social, peer pressure for the advancement of my beliefs.
It is my solemn duty to bring the world to Christ. If the government requires me to keep my beliefs personal and private they are infringing upon my God given purpose.
I must oppose as tyrannical any restriction that prevents me from witnessing my faith in every possible venue.

[dog breath]

Even for those who are not Christian the decision that a public moment of prayer is the same as the government forcing a particular religion upon people is absurd. As long as what and to whom if anything the person contemplates in that moment is unknowable it infringes upon no right. A Hindu child could silently address a prayer to Ganesha , a atheist could contemplate lunch and it would make no difference. To forbid people from a free expression of their religion does seem unjust.