Uphold the First Amendment
By Governor Fob James, Jr.

The Montgomery Advertiser's editorial (2/10) took me to task for the process by which I have expressed opposition to the ruling of Circuit Judge Price prohibiting prayer at the opening of Court. The editorial then endorsed the substance of Judge Price's order by characterizing the issue as "the imposition of a particular religion's tenets and practices into an official function of a branch ofgovernment" and observing that "the Constitution prohibits that and rightly so." Other editorialists have espoused similar views.

Such objections to the process usually goes no further than to lump my opposition in the same category as Governor Wallace's fatally flawed (as he has since acknowledged) opposition to desegregation. Historically, support is found for my reaction in the example of Abraham Lincoln's refusal to accept the infamous Dred Scott decision in face of Judge Stephen Douglas' protest that the decision correctly stated a rule of law in favor of white supremacy. Other distinguished company includes Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson.

And speaking of Thomas Jefferson, that brings me to the judicial sleight of hand that has lifted the phrase "wall of separation" between church and state from one of Jefferson's letters, stripped it of its proper context, and inserted it into law as though it were part of the text of the Constitution. The Advertiser's characterization of the issue suggests that it too has fallen into the trap of assuming that the First Amendment contemplates the removal of all aspects of our religious heritage whenever found in any public setting.

The First Amendment establishes two prohibitions at opposite extremes on the spectrum. It opposes the establishment of a nationally endorsed religion, such as a formal alliance with any one denomination, and, at the same time, it opposes governmental action to block the free exercise ofreligion. Because our founding fathers moved in a public environment that easily tolerated references to matters such as God, prayer and the Ten Commandments in public activities while convening the Constitutional convention, the courts and Congress, a practice that is ongoing today, it is awfully hard to swallow the idea that such practices now suddenly endanger us with the prospect for establishment of a national religion. The Advertiser editorial has obviously swallowed the dogma through which the First Amendment has been revised or else he or she would not have been so quick to characterize the matters at issue as "the imposition of a particular religion's tenets and practices into an official function of a branch of government." In so doing, aid and comfort has been lent to a rule of law that stifles the free exercise ofreligion, a right also expressly protected by the First Amendment.

I hope and pray that my opposition will cause thoughtful individuals to reread the text of the Constitution in the cold light of day and awaken to the fact that some have been misled by those who would rewrite the Constitution in order to advance a personal ideology. And, if after such awakening, such persons still adhere to the view that what Judge Price has ordered is good public policy, then they should take the academically honest step of seeking an amendment to rewrite the First Amendment to suit their views. As for me, I will resist every step of the way, as I believe the First Amendment now reads quite well, thank you, contrary to the views ofthose who would choose to revise it by force of judicial decree.

Letter of support can be sent to:

Scott Barnette, Clerk/Court Attendant
Moore Defense Fund
P.O. Box 8222
Gadsden, AL 35902
205-549-5364

Comments may be sent to:

Governor Fob James, Jr.
State Capitol
P.O. Box 302751
Montgomery, AL 36130-2751
E-Mail: govjames@,asnmail.asc.edu

---

Back to Chuck's "Must Read List"
Back to Home Page