Nicholls doesn’t understand First Amendment

In his letter to the editor dated Nov. 30, Mr. Ron Nicholls accused the Rehoboth Beach city government of committing an "obvious violation of the Constitution" and a "clear violation of the First Amendment."

In Mr. Nicholls' mind, they did so by allowing a nativity scene to be erected on public property. In his letter, he also accuses "many local Catholics and other Christians" of having "no regard for our Constitution and the ever so important wall of separation of church and state."

Perhaps Mr. Nicholls is confused as to what the First Amendment actually says. For the record, the one-sentence First Amendment (in its entirety) reads as follows:  

"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."

Note that the verbiage of the amendment prohibits Congress (and by inference, any lesser body of lawmakers) from making any law that establishes a religion.

Contextually, it should be noted that the Founding Fathers feared the establishment of a Church of England-type of institution in the United States.

The amendment then goes on to prohibit Congress (or any other lawmaking body) from making laws that would be "prohibiting" (forbidding or preventing) to the free exercise of religion, and from making laws that would be "abridging" (reducing or lessening; diminishing; curtailing) to 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.

Nothing in the First Amendment can be seen to prohibit an expression of religious faith (such as a nativity scene) in the public forum. To the contrary, the words of the text protect that right, as such expressions are inherently a part of the "free exercise thereof." According to this amendment, no person or governmental entity (including Mr. Nicholls or the city of Rehoboth Beach) has the right to prohibit people who wish to express their faith publicly. Additionally, it should be noted that to do so would also be an egregious abridgment of their freedom of speech. 

I find it interesting that Mr. Nicholls, and others like him, tend to repeatedly use the phrase, "separation of church and state," as though it is a central tenet of the Constitution, even though the phrase does not exist in the Constitution. By its constant use, they reveal that they seem to see the state as being in need of protection from the church and from religion.  The Founding Fathers, however, clearly saw it the other way around, as they were careful to install protective language, such as the First Amendment, in order to protect the church, and the people, from the state.

In conclusion, in permitting the nativity scene, the Rehoboth Beach city government did not commit a violation of the Constitution (or of the First Amendment thereto). To the contrary, they upheld it, and they are to be commended for doing so. And this being the case, it would seem that, in reality, "many local Catholics and other Christians," actually hold the U.S. Constitution in high regard. And rightly so, for it is within that document that the rights and freedoms that were given to us by God are confirmed.