The 1st, Religion, and PBS
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/9>

      There is currently a "discussion," rather a sanctimonious debate occurring as to whether or not the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and it subsidiaries, the TV Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio should continue to receive money from the federal government. Radio and TV media are clearly held by the Supreme Court to fall under the 1st amendment provision of freedom of the press. Fine with me. Let us look at the first amendment.

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      If I read this correctly we have five distinctly different areas of prohibition against Congress from making laws. Those are religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. I can read it differently with different emphasis upon semicolons and commas but I do not think any of us are in agreement as to these five I have named are a reasonable break-out.
      IF we are to assume, for the sake of argument of course, that these were all put into one amendment and duly ratified, for the purpose of having them all treated in the same manner then we have a point to begin a moderately pleasant discussion. Let us begin to be moderately pleasant.
      Now we all agree that in english, as observed by Mark Twain, its users would rather use the wrong word the second time rather than the correct word twice in the same sentence. This rule applies to the 1st amendment. That is something english speakers appear to be born with. It is not rational, it is english. Perhaps a trait we inherited from the British.
      But never mind. Let us take an overview of this. Solely because Thomas Jefferson wrote in a private letter to a friend that his opinion was that the 1st created a "wall of separation" between church and state we have a Supreme Court mandated wall of separation. Fine with me. Who am I to note Jefferson was not involved in the drafting of the 1st amendment? In fact he was in France as our Ambassador all through the drafting of our constitution and the bill of rights.
      Moving right along, the right of lobbying and lobbyists is protected in this amendment the right to petition government for the redress of grievances; Congress shall make no law. The best we appear to be able to prohibit constitutionally is the right to bribe government for the redress of grievances. We clearly prohibit the government from petitioning itself, government paid for lobbying, in that a government agency can not hire a lobbyist to promote in Congress what that government agency wants.
      We have some momentum here so lets keep going. Within the uniform application of public order and safety people can assemble any place and time they wish and the only questions are in regard to public demonstrations. Certainly the government paying to organize a public demonstration would be shot down as quickly as those who refuse to participate in a spontaneous demonstration in China would be.
      Freedom of speech is so revered and protected a bullwhip up a man's anus is protected but ... hold it. I have a problem here. Where is this wall of separation?
      Let us review the bidding. The rational people who put these five protections into one amendment did so for a reason. That reason does not appear to have been to save paper but rather that they were to be treated the same, that they were all in the same general category of protections. I guess I am missing why different clauses of the same sentence in the same amendment are given different treatment. Perhaps it is just me.
      I simply do not see why a government sponsored religion, a government newspaper, a government lobbyist, a government public spokesman is prohibited when government established art, radio and TV is acceptable. The person fluent in the english language would assume all variants in each clause (under the Twain rule) would apply to all the other clauses. If supporting art or TV or radio is acceptable then so is supporting a government religion. If supporting a religion is not acceptable then neither is supporting art or TV or radio.
      Perhaps I am missing something in noting it is all the same amendment. How can I come to understand that different criteria apply to different clauses in the same sentence? I doubt anyone can help me over this sticking point. I do not see how I can have government established radio and TV networks and not have a government established religion.
      This rancorous name calling is all over a rather trivial issue, a government established and subsidized "press" is no more approved by the 1st than is a government established and subsidized religion. They are all equally prohibited. The US equivalent of Pravda is unthinkable. The US equivalent of BBC Channel 1 is for some reason acceptable. Not in any reading the US Constitution I have done. But then, I am not a constitutional attorney. I do not know how to make five little rabbits out of one big rabbit.