Introduction

In the year 1971, founding fathers of America included the First Amendment in the already existing constitution. The first amendment stated that the country should not have any established religion. In fact, this was a first-hand practice in terms of the correlation between church and state. The authors of the amendment dreaded absorption of power especially within the confines of religion. After the passing years, since its insertion in the constitution, the first amendment proved vital on religious establishments within America. In the preceding two hundred years, the only issues The First Amendment had, pertained to offering mail services on a Sunday, spiritual bigamy, Sunday closing regulations for commercial enterprises and prayers within public institutions. This paper seeks to discuss Donald Trump sentiments from a constitutional perspective and whether his comments would go against the First Amendment. Secondly, the paper will take the plaintiff side in such a scenario.

Constitutional perspective of Donald Trump’s remarks

After the 2015 terrorist attack in Paris, Trump, during a press conference, advised the American administration to shut down Mosques, insinuating that terrorists hack their plans within mosques (Saeed, 2017). Fundamentally, Trump’s comments aimed at isolating and pointing out a specific religious establishment for sanction solely because its followers obeyed specific beliefs. The first amendment does not condone such utterances neither does it support the closure of religious institutions because of unfounded or biased opinions. Instead, the first amendment safeguards religious freedom and prohibits rules and regulations that would result into lack of citizens exercising their religious liberty in their own country.

 Trump argued that his sentiments targeted Mosques, which taught radical Islamic lessons hence contributing to terrorism (Saeed, 2017). Even after altering his comments, going around closing mosques goes against the First Amendment. The First amendment gives Americans the right to worship and liberty to join any religious gathering they deem fit.

 The free speech article within the first amendment, gives Americans the authority to stop hateful speeches, which provokes instantaneous violence, but not general contentious speeches that have the potential of sparking violence in the near future (Kessler, 2016). Trump also claimed as the president, he would put in place limitations on the first amendment, consequently controlling press material.

            Demographic reports reveal that an estimated two and half million Muslims live in United States of America (Kessler, 2016). The figure may be a rough estimate but much higher, let’s say, 3 million. Going by the figure, New York has 100 mosques. In the end, closing down mosques would step on the toes of many innocent Muslims and infringing on their rights and personal freedom spaces since sometimes they use the mosque as a social gathering location.

The founding father of America came from various religious upbringings and acknowledged that the only way of safeguarding religious freedom was separating the government from religion (Kessler, 2016). Therefore, they came up with the First amendment, hence successfully separating the state from religion matters. This primary liberty is one of the main reasons America was able to avert religious disagreements that tore other countries apart.

 The establishing section of the first amendment does not allow the administration to approve or reassure religious matters in any manner. This is the underlying reason why United States of America does not identify itself with any religion. In other words, America has no official religion (Kessler, 2016). In addition, this implies that the government supports no religion, financially or in any other given way. However, many academic coupon curriculums go against the law as they lend money from public coffers to academic institutions promoting religion.

The free exercise article gives the public the right to worship or not worship at all; the choice entirely lies with them (Kessler, 2016). The government or in this matter Donald Trump cannot reprimand Muslims by closing Mosques. Hence, Donald Trump has no right to interfere, generalize, and discriminate Muslims.

The plaintiff side

            Shutting down mosques is synonymous to impeding an individual’s life (Redish, 2015). Radical groups such as ISIS strike fear in the heart of men simply because they hold varying religious beliefs. This is a problem because it is an uphill task giving people the chance to convert from one religion to another.

For religious freedom and laws regulating its practice, the emergence of clear ethical strategies for study and practice are characteristically sophisticate. For instance, few systematic fields depend on culture, religion, and political systematizations to define their functionalities or regulations governing them (Redish, 2015). Constitution and the laws governing religion are not any different. Moreover, few constitutional segments have the ability to undo the first amendment. Due to its direct association with both public and personal freedom, the public view it as vital and mandatory. Therefore, the law should punish provocative speech.

Discrimination refers to the process of favoring one person over another or treatment of a person unfairly. The reason for preferring may be due to race, sex, or religion (Redish, 2015). Voluntary prohibition is one of the approaches of helping protect religions .One of the benefits of voluntarily prohibition is that it provides alternative perspectives into various situations. For instance if the prohibition only considered religion voluntary prohibition provides a good foundation to input other ideas and opinion in the law on religion which in turn strengthens the law. The allowance that comes with applying a prohibited law from any angle may lead to a discovery of multiple channels of existence.

Furthermore, it insulates Muslims from any discrimination that may occur in the working environment. Within any human society or environment, a relationship usually develops between people from different religion backgrounds. The relationships focus mutual respect type of relationship (Redish, 2015). This implies that a Muslim has to carry out his or her duties as stipulated by the organization he or she works under. However if there is not law that monitor the relationship, discrimination may take place in any area. More over an employer may abuse his or her authority. Voluntary prohibiting is one of the factors that may unknowingly promote some facets of discrimination. Laws may offer double protection of both the worker and the employer .The law does not only protect the employee but the worker as well

All in all, Diversity not just something that occurs because it is ethical but it is a way of representing the face of the today’s society. Research proves that the more diverse in the work place, produces good output. This productivity relies on the fact that diversity increases competition between workers, which in turn influences the quality of workforce hence any interference with religion will have a pendulum effect on productivity. A diverse workforce is more likely o to find various unique ways of carrying out activities and solving problems within an enterprise. The extent to which diversity goes to strengthen organization and social capital is an important aspect that comes about due to effective communication and varying skill sets that come about in the process of implementing or selecting a diverse workforce. Insight   and other ethical principles are just some side effects of diversity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference

Kessler, J. K. (2016). The Early Years of First Amendment Lochnerism. Colum. L. Rev., 116, 1915.

Redish, M. H. (2015). Fear, Loathing and the First Amendment: Optimistic Skepticism and the Theory of Free Expression.

Saeed, A. (2017). Freedom of religion, apostasy and Islam. Routledge.