First Amendment, redux.

I suppose most of you have heard by now about the lady in Indiana who got pulled over by a State Trooper for a traffic violation and got proselytized and handed pamphlets instead, when she "admitted" to going to church, right?

That's bad enough, but listen to what the American Family Association of Indiana has to say in the officer's defense:

“Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Asso-ciation of Indiana, said that although the traffic stop might not have been the best time to quiz someone about faith, he questioned whether a police officer should lose his right to free speech because he is wearing a badge. 

“‘I have people pass out religious material all the time. Mormons come to my door all the time, and it doesn’t offend me,’ Clark said. ‘(This case) might not be the most persuasive time to talk to someone about their faith, but I don’t think that a police officer is prohibited from doing something like that.’ ”

Take another look at the part I emphasized.

That's the part that burns me up.  I hear this shit all the time.  Every time a public servant pulls out the religion card some right wing moron pulls this crap out of his hat in defense.

It is well established in past SCOTUS rulings throughout the 20th century that when a person is acting as an agent of the government (of whatever level) he/she is not acting in his/her capacity as an individual.  That person is acting in the "person" of the State, and has the authority of the State.

That's why, when a police officer confronts you for a violation of the law, that officer has the authority to summon you to court.  That isn't the cop telling you to go to court, it's THE COURT summoning you.

And he's doing it with a gun on his hip that he is authorized to use to kill you if you endanger him or a member of the public while he is performing his job.

Read this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...

Now, then, think about that for a moment.  It is known as the Establishment Clause.  It means that Congress (and by virtue of the 14th amendment, that goes for State and local governments, too) cannot pass laws (or regulations) that favor a religion.  In other words, establishing an official relationship between the government and a religion.

Now, read that again:

               Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...

Is it becoming any clearer?  A cop, or any public servant, in the course of performing his/her official duties, while acting thus as an agent of the State, cannot act in a manner consistent with the establishment of an official relationship with a religion.  Favoring a religion gives the impression of such an official relationship.

Giving out pamphlets gives the impression of such an official relationship.

Asking if someone has accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior gives the impression of such an official relationship.

Every cop is familiar with the principle of time, place and manner.  Some things are only appropriate at a certain time, or in a certain place, or in a certain manner.  That is how it is with religion.

If that cop had approached the woman on the street, in civilian clothes, and engaged her in conversation and handed her that pamphlet, she would have been free to disengage and refuse the material.  His approach would have been proper, and legal, and nobody would have any grounds to complain.

But by approaching her with those words and that material in uniform, with a traffic citation book in hand, she was NOT free to disengage.  She could not leave, and she was well advised to be in fear that had she demurred his offer of that material, she would have been awarded with a traffic citation.

No.  The officer had no right to put an innocent (or even a guilty) civilian in such a position.  Yes, his First Amendment rights get checked at the door when he puts on the uniform.

You see, there's another aspect of the First Amendment that needs to be understood here.

It applies to what is called Prior Restraint by the government on your right to speak, or to the prohibition of the government's ability to punish for past speech.

The government.  In this case, yes, his employer is the government, but because he is in an employee/employer relationship with the government agency in question, that agreement governs the relationship.  Part of the implied (and often implicit) governing rules of that relationship is the employer's right to restrict your speech while acting in its behalf.  It has the right to make you say things that are in accordance with its views and policies, and to NOT say things that are not in accordance with those views or policies.

That goes with ANY employer, private, public or government.  That's because in entering in that agreement, you do so voluntarily, by exercising your free will.  So, you are voluntarily giving up your right to speech while acting as your employer's agent.  This not a new or controversial rule.

Apparently, to the Indiana AFA, it is.