Rick Fischer
Aug 24, 2017 · 2 min read

Our First Amendment is a single sentence of several clauses protecting the freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, and petition of the government. There is no conditional limitation expressed or implied based on giving or experiencing “offense”. “Offense” deliberately plays no part whatever in the First Amendment.

Yet “offense” has come creeping into judicial precedence as grounds for limiting First Amendment rights, specifically regarding the free exercise of religion. Judges accept cases wherein plaintiffs claim that some aspect of someone else’s religion causes them to be offended. Seeing the Ten Commandments on a wall in a courthouse is a common complaint. So is singing a Christmas carol in school on Christmas. Sorry, on Winter Solstice Celebration Day.

The complaint goes like this — 1) The Ten Commandments is associated with the Judeo/Christian faith, which offends me because I’m an Atheist (or whatever); 2) Because it is displayed on public property and it offends me, the State has thereby established the Judeo/Christian religion against me; 3) Therefore, the State has violated my First Amendment rights.

Notice that plaintiffs can’t claim that the offending object must go because it causes offense; even Liberal judges couldn’t stomach that one. They have to argue that the location of a public space causes an establishment of religion.

There are two important lessons here. First, there is no Constitutional right anywhere, let alone in the First Amendment, to be free of being offended. Being offended by the Ten Commandments or by a statue or painting or whatever establishes ZERO standing to call upon the State to relieve the source of your offense nor to call upon the courts to force the State to do so.

Christians were deeply offended by Serrano’s “Piss Christ”, but had no standing to restrict its viewing.

Second, establishment of a religion does not consist simply of the State allowing a representation that is historically appropriate to the setting and is coincidentally related to a specific religion. Establishment does rather consist of infringing on a person’s rights or opportunities or standing under the law specifically because that person declines to adhere to the specified religion. Infringement is the key, not offense.

Placing a religious object of historical significance in view on public property no more establishes a religion than having to hear a church bell on a public street. Being offended by a religious object or by a statue or a painting in no way confers any standing to demand its removal.

)

Rick Fischer

Written by