Religious Freedom and Amendment

¶ … First Amendment Shutting Mosques, Trump and First Amendment The proposal by trump, at its very core, would seek to sanction a religious institution by virtue of the adherence of its members to certain religious beliefs. Indeed, this is exactly what the first amendment speaks against. The first amendment protects religious freedom and outlaws anything that would bar the free exercise of one's religion of choice. It is referred to as the Free Exercise Clause.

Trump could say that he only sought to sanction the mosques that propagate what he refers to as radical Islam. However, he did not provide any evidence of activity or advocacy on any mosques. The crucial right to religious freedom is enshrined in the U.S. constitution's first amendment. It states that Congress is bound not to make any law that respects establishment of a given religion or stops the free exercise of religious practice.

The Free Exercise Clause, which is the latter half of the declaration guards religious freedom in various contexts. It bars the government from interfering with the religious practice of a group or an individual and further bars the government from targeting religious acts for circumscription (Dreisbach and Hall, 2009). Religious persons and groups are also provided with limited protection against laws that can be applied generally. This is also how the contraceptive mandate finds fault with the First Amendment.

Such a modified proposal would still not only be ineligible; based on the Free Exercise Clause but also in light of the Free Speech clause also enshrined in the First Amendment; which allows for stopping speech that is inciting with immediacy but not one that is simply widely controversial and that might trigger some violent act in future. Any talk that attempts to restrict the religious practice of Islam comes in direct conflict with the First Amendment (Dreisbach, Hall and Morrison, 2009).

The reason for the above observation is that Muslims, like Christians, have the freedom to practice their religion as provided for by the constitution of America. Suffice to say, shutting down a mosque would obviously be unconstitutional. The issue of whether it is unconstitutional may also be determined by whether we apply the constitution as was intended by the crafting fathers or using it as mangled and twisted by the court systems.

Lawyer: plaintiffs- Muslim Mosque In the event of attempt to close mosques, the resultant case would, most probably, have two parties; the government/the residency as defendants on one hand, and the mosques as the plaintiffs on the other hand. I will argue the case on behalf of the mosques in this paper. Arguing for the Muslim Congregation The First amendment clearly protects a number of basic liberties, i.e. freedom of speech, freedom of religion, press freedom, freedom to petition and freedom of assembly.

The interpretation of the limits of the First amendment has proven to be a hard task. Many cases have made attempts to define the scope of the freedoms. Indeed, the definition of the First Amendment has also evolved through the history of America. It has not ended. The freedom of religion is catered for in two clauses in the constitution. There is the establishment Clause that bars the government from starting an official church, and the Free Exercise Clause that allows freedom of worship (Dreisbach et al., 2009).

It is notable that the phrase on separation of the state and the church does not occur anywhere in the First Amendment or the constitution as a whole. The issue of religious freedom is clearly a fundamental freedom granted by the first Amendment in the two clauses mentioned earlier. It entails the right to believe/not to believe and the right to express and show such religious beliefs; if any. The rights under discussion here are fundamental, and cannot, thus, be subjected to voting or political process. The U.S.

constitution does not endorse any religion; neither does it recognize any form of government power to make decisions on theologically aligned issues. Beliefs around God are subjects beyond the scope of the Congress and the U.S. president. They are issues squarely in the realm of individuals, religious communities, theologians and families (Emerson, 1963; Kabala, 2013).

The weight of this argument is strongly hinged on what was meant by the founder in the use of the term "religion." If these founders meant "any system of belief that is supernatural "as some activist judges have suggested, there may not be much that can be done to close down mosques or remove giant Satan statues from government property (Miller, 2012).

However, if we choose to understand religion as was understood by the founders, referring specifically to Christianity, then there is a way out; constitutionally, to close down mosques from today. The intention of the founders of this nation was for the country to be ruled and governed based on reason and the rule of law. This is essentially why there is the constitution and the Bill Of Rights. All these guarantee a wide range of individual freedoms.

When it was ruled by the Supreme Court recently that consenting adults have a right to marry as provided for by the Fourth Amendment; regardless of one's gender, a section of our society could not cope. They are still struggling to come to terms to the realities of the ruling (Dreisbach and Hall, 2009). Although the matter of the meaning of "no establishment may remain debatable" it is widely agreed that barring government from interfering in religious matters is critical for the exercise of religious liberty.

The framers knew that the phrase "no establishment meant that there would be no national church and that there would be no government involvement in religious matters. It means, therefore, that subjecting mosques to a separate set of laws is a blatant violation of the constitution and of Civil Rights. There is no doubt that the U.S. remains at the fore of countries with the most.