<<But doesn't that "double standard" come directly from the constitution?
Religious speech *should* be restricted in cases where it could be
construed as an endorsement by the government (i.e. in public school
science classes). At least, that seems to be the way the constitution
is interpreted nowadays.>>
Actually, the tide is turning. The current Supreme Court is moving closer to
the Framers' intent in this regard.
The Framers' never meant this as a restriction on speech, or even governmental
endorsement. The Establishment Clause was intended to prevent setting up a
NATIONAL church. Justice Joseph Story noted, in his Commentaries, that the
First A. was to "prevent any natioinal ecclesiastical establishment which
should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national
government." And, of course, the Bill of Rights were never intended to apply
to the states.
It wasn't until 1947, when Hugo Black incorporated a phrase in a letter from
Thomas Jefferson (the infamous "wall of separation"--a phrase which is NOT in
our Constitution) into official First Amendment jurispriduence that the slide
into suppression of religious speech began.
And the ACLU has been the dominant force in this area. They used the courts
well. Now, however, the tide is turning. Organizations like the ACLJ are using
the same tactics to reverse the trends of the Warren Court.
I wouldn't necessarily view the ACLU as employing a double standard over
religious speech. They believe what they're doing is right, and even compelled
by the First Amendment. However, that compulsion is only due to the latter-day
interpretation of the amendment by a liberal high court. We're beginning to
lean the other way now.
Jim