First Amendment Thoughts

RECEIVED Fri., Sept. 1, 2006

Dear Editor,
    The First Amendment to the Constitution reads in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech."
    I am convinced the prohibition against the establishment was intended to preclude some future Congress from establishing a "state religion" in America. The intent of the phrase precluding Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion is clear.
    Now we have a federal court judge telling the city of San Diego that it must remove a memorial cross dedicated to Korean War veterans from Mount Soledad.
    Let me get this straight: The Congress of the U.S. cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, but a lone federal judge can. In effect, that judge has invested the courts with the authority to prohibit the free exercise of religion, an anthority specifically forbidden to Congress. I thought the primary function of the courts was to interpret and apply the law, not to rewrite it.
    Ironically, our judicial system violates its own interpretation of the separation of church and state. Every U.S. court requires witnesses to place one hand on the Bible and swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
Gerard Kern
One click gets you all the newsletters listed below

Breaking news, arts coverage, and daily events

Can't keep up with happenings around town? We can help.

Austin's queerest news and events

New recipes and food news delivered Mondays

All questions answered (satisfaction not guaranteed)

Information is power. Support the free press, so we can support Austin.   Support the Chronicle