Background Image

...

The "establishment Of Religion" Clause Of The First Amendment Means At Least This: Neither A State Nor The Federal Government Can Set Up A Church. Neither Can Pass Laws Which Aid One Religion, Aid All Religions, Or Prefer One Religion Over Another. Neither Can Force Nor Influence A Person To Go To Or To Remain Away From Church Against His Will Or Force Him To Profess A Belief Or Disbelief In Any Religion.

-Hugo Black

...

Please Wait....
Translating....

The "establishment Of Religion"

Hugo Black

...

The "establishment Of Religion" Clause Of The First Amendment Means At Least This: Neither A State Nor The Federal Government Can Set Up A Church. Neither Can Pass Laws Which Aid One Religion, Aid All Religions, Or Prefer One Religion Over Another. Neither Can Force Nor Influence A Person To Go To Or To Remain Away From Church Against His Will Or Force Him To Profess A Belief Or Disbelief In Any Religion.

Views: 47943

Topic

More From Hugo Black

The Founding Fathers Gave The Free Press The Protection It Must Have To... Bare The Secrets Of Government And Inform The People.

The "establishment Of Religion" Clause Of The First Amendment Means At Least This: Neither A State Nor The Federal Government Can Set Up A Church. Neither Can Pass Laws Which Aid One Religion, Aid All Religions, Or Prefer One Religion Over Another. Neither Can Force Nor Influence A Person To Go To Or To Remain Away From Church Against His Will Or Force Him To Profess A Belief Or Disbelief In Any Religion.

The Flagrant Disregard In The Courtroom Of Elementary Standards Of Proper Conduct Should Not And Cannot Be Tolerated.

We Repeat And Again Reaffirm That Neither A State Nor The Federal Government Can Constitutionally Force A Person "to Profess A Belief Or Disbelief In Any Religion." Neither Can Constitutionally Pass Laws Or Impose Requirements Which Aid All Religions As Against Nonbelievers, And Neither Can Aid Those Religions Based On A Belief In The Existence Of God As Against Those Religions Founded On Different Beliefs.

The Lesson Which Wars And Depressions Have Taught Is That If We Want Peace, Prosperity And Happiness At Home We Must Help To Establish Them Abroad.

We Believe Trial Judges Confronted With Disruptive, Contumacious, Stubbornly Defiant Defendants Must Be Given Sufficient Discretion To Meet The Circumstances In Each Case.

The Press Was Protected So That It Could Bare The Secrets Of The Government And Inform The People. Only A Free And Unrestrained Press Can Effectively Expose Deception In Government. And Paramount Among The Responsibilities Of A Free Press Is The Duty To Prevent Any Part Of The Government From Deceiving The People.

Freedom To Speak And Write About Public Questions Is As Important To The Life Of Our Government As Is The Heart To The Human Body. In Fact, This Privilege Is The Heart Of Our Government. If That Heart Be Weakened, The Result Is Debilitation; If It Be Stilled, The Result Is Death.

The First Ten Amendments Were Proposed And Adopted Largely Because Of Fear That Government Might Unduly Interfere With Prized Individual Liberties. The People Wanted And Demanded A Bill Of Rights Written Into Their Constitution. The Amendments Embodying The Bill Of Rights Were Intended To Curb All Branches Of The Federal Government In The Fields Touched By The Amendments-legislative, Executive, And Judicial.

The Framers Of The Constitution Knew That Free Speech Is The Friend Of Change And Revolution. But They Also Knew That It Is Always The Deadliest Enemy Of Tyranny.

Loyalty Must Arise Spontaneously From The Hearts Of People Who Love Their Country And Respect Their Government.

History Showed That Many People Had Lost Their Respect For Any Religion That Had Relied Upon The Support Of Government To Spread Its Faith.

When I Was 40, My Doctor Advised Me That A Man In His 40s Shouldn't Play Tennis. I Heeded His Advice Carefully And Could Hardly Wait Until I Reached 50 To Start Again.

Criticism Of Government Finds Sanctuary In Several Portions Of The 1st Amendment. It Is Part Of The Right Of Free Speech. It Embraces Freedom Of The Press

The First Amendment Provides The Only Kind Of Security System That Can Preserve A Free Government - One That Leaves The Way Wide Open For People To Favor, Discuss, Advocate, Or Incite Causes And Doctrines However Obnoxious And Antagonistic Such Views May Be To The Rest Of Us.

Security Systems

Our Constitution Was Not Written In The Sands To Be Washed Away By Each Wave Of New Judges Blown In By Each Successive Political Wind.

The Interest Of The People Lies In Being Able To Join Organizations, Advocate Causes, And Make Political "mistakes" Without Being Subjected To Governmental Penalties.

Freedom Of Speech Means That You Shall Not Do Something To People Either For The Views They Have, Or The Views They Express, Or The Words They Speak Or Write.

The Court Stands Against Any Winds That Blow As Havens Of Refuge For Those Who Might Otherwise Suffer Because They Are Helpless, Weak, Outnumbered, Or Because They Are Nonconforming Victims Of Prejudice Or Public Excitement.

In My View, Far From Deserving Condemnation For Their Courageous Reporting, The New York Times, The Washington Post And Other Newspaper Should Be Commended For Serving The Purpose That The Founding Fathers Saw So Clearly.

Words Uttered Under Coercion Are Proof Of Loyalty To Nothing But Self-interest. Love Of Country Must Spring From Willing Hearts And Free Minds.

I Was Brought Up To Believe That Scotch Whisky Would Need A Tax Preference To Survive In Competition With Kentucky Bourbon.

An Unconditional Right To Say What One Pleases About Public Affairs Is What I Consider To Be The Minimum Guarantee Of The First Amendment.

The Very First Condition Of Lasting Happiness Is That A Life Should Be Full Of Purpose, Aiming At Something Outside Self.

Lasting Happiness

Paramount Among The Responsibilities Of A Free Press Is The Duty To Prevent Any Part Of The Government From Deceiving The People And Sending Them Off To Distant Lands To Die Of Foreign Fevers And Foreign Shot And Shell.

The Establishment Clause Stands As An Expression Of Principle On The Part Of The Founders Of Our Constitution That Religion Is Too Personal, Too Sacred, Too Holy, To Permit Its 'unhallowed Perversion' By A Civil Magistrate.

In My Judgment The People Of No Nation Can Lose Their Liberty So Long As A Bill Of Rights Like Ours Survives And Its Basic Purposes Are Conscientiously Interpreted, Enforced And Respected So As To Afford Continuous Protection Against Old, As Well As New, Devices And Practices Which Might Thwart Those Purposes. I Fear To See The Consequences Of The Court's Practice Of Substituting Its Own Concepts Of Decency And Fundamental Justice For The Language Of The Bill Of Rights As Its Point Of Departure In Interpreting And Enforcing That Bill Of Rights.

I Do Not Believe That It Can Be Too Often Repeated That The Freedoms Of Speech, Press, Petition And Assembly Guaranteed By The First Amendment Must Be Accorded To The Ideas We Hate Or Sooner Or Later They Will Be Denied To The Ideas We Cherish. The First Banning Of An Association Because It Advocates Hated Ideas - Whether That Association Be Called A Political Party Or Not - Marks A Fateful Moment In The History Of A Free Country.

The Layman's Constitutional View Is That What He Likes Is Constitutional And That Which He Doesn't Like Is Unconstitutional.

A Union Of Government And Religion Tends To Destroy Government And To Degrade Religion.

In Revealing The Workings Of Government That Led To The Vietnam War, The Newspapers Nobly Did Precisely That Which The Founders Hoped And Trusted They Would Do.

That Amendment Requires The State To Be A Neutral In Its Relations With Groups Of Religious Believers And Nonbelievers; It Does Not Require The State To Be Their Adversary. State Power Is No More To Be Used So As To Handicap Religions Than It Is To Favor Them.

It Would Degrade Our Country And Our Judicial System To Permit Our Courts To Be Bullied, Insulted And Humiliated And The Orderly Progress Thwarted And Obstructed By Defendants Brought Before Them Charged With Crimes.

No Person Can Be Punished For Entertaining Or Professing Religious Beliefs Or Disbeliefs, For Church Attendance Or Non-attendance.

The Public Welfare Demands That Constitutional Cases Must Be Decided According To The Terms Of The Constitution Itself, And Not According To Judges Views Of Fairness, Reasonableness, Or Justice. I Have No Fear Of Constitutional Amendments Properly Adopted, But I Do Fear The Rewriting Of The Constitution By Judges Under The Guise Of Interpretation.

Citizenship Is No Light Trifle To Be Jeopardized Any Moment Congress Decides To Do So Under The Name Of One Of Its General Or Implied Grants Of Power.

No Tax In Any Amount, Large Or Small, Can Be Levied To Support Any Religious Activities Or Institutions, Whatever They May Be Called, Or Whatever Form They May Adopt To Teach Or Practice Religion.

Among Religions In This Country Which Do Not Teach What Would Generally Be Considered A Belief In The Existence Of God Are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism And Others.

The Government's Power To Censor The Press Was Abolished So That The Press Would Remain Forever Free To Censure The Government. The Press Was Protected So That It Could Bare The Secrets Of Government And Inform The People. Only A Free And Unrestrained Press Can Effectively Expose Deception In Government.

What Finally Emerges From The 'clear And Present Danger' Cases Is A Working Principle That The Substantive Evil Must Be Extremely Serious And The Degree Of Imminence Extremely High Before Utterances Can Be Punished...it Must Be Taken As A Command Of The Broadest Scope That Explicit Language, Read In The Context Of A Liberty-loving Society, Will Allow.

I Cannot Agree With Those Who Think Of The Bill Of Rights As An 18th Century Straitjacket, Unsuited For This Age...the Evils It Guards Against Are Not Only Old, They Are With Us Now, They Exist Today.

From The Very Beginning, Our State And National Constitutions And Laws Have Laid Great Emphasis On Procedural And Substantive Safeguards Designed To Assure Fair Trials Before Impartial Tribunals In Which Every Defendant Stands Equal Before The Law. This Noble Ideal Cannot Be Realized If The Poor Man Charged With Crime Has To Face His Accusers Without A Lawyer To Assist Him.

I Am For The First Amendment From The First Word To The Last. I Believe It Means What It Says.

There Can Be No Equal Justice Where The Kind Of Trial A Man Gets Depends On The Amount Of Money He Has.

The First Amendment's Language Leaves No Room For Inference That Abridgments Of Speech And Press Can Be Made Just Because They Are Slight. That Amendment Provides, In Simple Words, That "congress Shall Make No Law . . . Abridging The Freedom Of Speech, Or Of The Press." I Read "no Law . . . Abridging" To Mean No Law Abridging.

No Higher Duty, Or More Solemn Responsibility, Rests Upon This Court Than That Of Translating Into Living Law And Maintaining This Constitutional Shield Deliberately Planned And Inscribed For The Benefit Of Every Human Being Subject To Our Constitution - Of Whatever Race, Creed Or Persuasion.

The Word 'security' Is A Broad, Vague Generality Whose Contours Should Not Be Invoked To Abrogate The Fundamental Law Embodied In The First Amendment. The Guarding Of Military And Diplomatic Secrets At The Expense Of Informed Representative Government Provides No Real Security.

Compelling A Man By Law To Pay His Money To Elect Candidates Or Advocate Law Or Doctrines He Is Against Differs Only In Degree, If At All, From Compelling Him By Law To Speak For A Candidate, A Party, Or A Cause He Is Against. The Very Reason For The First Amendment Is To Make The People Of This Country Free To Think, Speak, Write And Worship As They Wish, Not As The Government Commands.

The Press Was To Serve The Governed, Not The Governors.

Freedom Of The Press

The United States Has A System Of Taxation By Confession

It Is My Belief That There Are "absolutes" In Our Bill Of Rights, And That They Were Put There On Purpose By Men Who Knew What Words Meant And Meant Their Prohibitions To Be "absolutes."

The History Of Governmentally Established Religion, Both In England And In This Country, Showed That Whenever Government Had Allied Itself With One Particular Form Of Religion, The Inevitable Result Had Been That It Had Incurred The Hatred, Disrespect And Even Contempt Of Those Who Held Contrary Beliefs.

Laws Are Made To Protect The Trusting As Well As The Suspicious

The First Amendment Has Erected A Wall Between Church And State. That Wall Must Be Kept High And Impregnable. We Could Not Approve The Slightest Breach.

[i]t Is True That [the Provisions Of The Bill Of Rights] Were Designed To Meet Ancient Evils. But They Are The Same Kind Of Human Evils That Have Emerged From Century To Century Whenever Excessive Power Is Sought By The Few At The Expense Of The Many.

Freedom To Publish Means Freedom For All And Not For Some. Freedom To Publish Is Guaranteed By The Constitution But Freedom To Continue To Prevent Others From Publishing Is Not.

Sex Is A Fact Of Life...and While It May Lead To Abuses...no Words Need Be Spoken...for People To Know That The Subject Is One Pleasantly Interwoven In All Human Activities And Involves The Very Substance Of Creation Itself.

When The Power, Prestige And Financial Support Of Government Is Placed Behind A Particular Religious Belief, The Indirect Coercive Pressure Upon Religious Minorities To Conform To The Prevailing Officially Approved Religion Is Plain.

The Very Reason For The First Amendment Is To Make The People Of This Country Free To Think, Speak, Write And Worship As They Wish, Not As The Government Commands.

Trending Author

Gregory David Roberts

Armistead Maupin

Category