Scoble and Co. interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses

Wow, there was some frenzied discussion happening this weekend on Robert Scoble's weblog, and I didn't even see it until this evening!

What started it all was this post in response to Rob Lawson, 19, who misrepresented the ACLU and misinterpreted the Constitution. Rob first mistakenly states,

Many secularists and secular organizations like the ACLU want a total ban on any type of public Christmas displays or expression.

This is incorrect. The American Civil Liberties Union wants a total ban on government establishment of religion, which was prohibited by the Constitution back around 1787. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."). This is also where Rob's second main mistake happens -- he loves to harp on the freedoms granted by the First Amendment, but he never acknowledges the associated restrictions; if you read the First Amendment, you'll see that the Establishment restriction is the very first sentence. Hard to miss! To quote Rob:

To my understanding, our constitution guarantees Americans the right to free speech and expression, so banning candy canes and changing the word "Christmas" into "Winter Holiday" is a violation of our rights.

(Emphasis is his.) I'll agree with Rob that we do have free speech and expression -- but only up until the point where you're a government official and you're advocating a particular religion (or non-religion, as it may be). This is not the only restriction on our supposedly "free" expression. You may not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, you may not expose the identity of covert CIA operatives, etc. Our right to free speech carries with it responsibilities, which is what Rob seems to be forgetting.

Anyway, there was plenty of commenting, and trash-talking, and praying for Scoble's soul, and reply-blogging, and Scoble made several other posts talking about the controversy his first post stirred up. I'd like to take this opportunity to add some fuel to the fire, so here goes: ever notice how the debate techniques regarding religiousness vs. secularity seem to mirror the techniques used in the debate about media bias? In both cases, someone claims they're being oppressed (e.g. religious types, conservative media types), yet in reality, their side is the one overwhelming the debate! Then, when the other side (e.g. secular types, liberal media types) disagree, it only serves to reinforce the original argument! Sneaky!

I'll also take this opportunity to invite the readers who wish to comment to do so via email. As you may notice, I do not have commenting enabled in Movable Type. This is because I have to pay for this site (the domain registration and the bandwidth cost money); thus, while you are entirely free to express your opinion, I am not obligated to cover the costs of hosting that opinion on my site.