Study: Most Americans Support School Prayers, Religious Displays

A majority of Americans believe religious displays, prayers at school and the Ten Commandments display in a court building should be legal in the United States, a new study showed. While religious Americans were more likely to agree, a majority of those who are not religious also believe such religious expressions and practices should be allowed, according to Ellison Research which conducted the research on a sample of 1,007 adults. The study was released Thursday.

Survey results revealed that 98 percent of born-again Americans compared to 81 percent of those not born again believe voluntary student-led prayer at public school events, such as football games or graduation ceremonies, should be legal. Also, 97 percent of born agains believe the law should support religious groups renting public property for meetings if non-religious groups are allowed to do so while 86 percent of not born again Americans agree. And 94 percent of born agains say a teacher wearing a religious symbol, such as a Star of David or a cross, during class should be legal compared to 85 percent of not born people. Ron Sellers, president of Ellison Research, believes the survey breaks the stereotype of the "religious right" and the "liberal left" believing a certain way.

“There’s too often a stereotype in today’s world that one side – be they defined as churchgoers, conservatives, the ‘religious right,’ Republicans, evangelicals, or whatever – want to turn the U.S. into a theocracy or shove religion down everyone’s throats, while the other side – again, be they called Democrats, the non-religious, liberals, or the unchurched – are anti-religion and fighting to make this a purely secular society. On most of these issues, these different groups have a lot more in common than the stereotypes would suggest – most people simply support the right to individual religious expression, even if another person may not like that expression," said Sellers in the report.

Although conservatives were more likely than liberals to believe in allowing the specific religious expressions and practices, majorities from both the groups agree with many of the issues such as allowing a nativity scene on city property, allowing a teacher to wear a religious symbol during class, and letting religious groups rent public property. There were larger discrepancies between the two groups on other issues such as voluntary student-led prayer at public school events. While 95 percent of conservatives say that should be legal, only 73 percent of liberals agree. Moreover, 87 percent of conservatives believe it should be legal to display the Ten Commandments in a court building but only 60 percent of liberals agree. Comparing the religious and non-religious Americans, 94 percent of born agains believe the Ten Commandments in a court building should be allowed but only 70 percent of those not born again agree.

Still overall, the survey found an overwhelming majority of Americans united on many of the issues. Ninety percent agree that religious groups renting public property if other groups are allowed to do so should be legal and 89 percent also say it should be legal for a public school teacher to permit a "moment of silence" for prayer or contemplation for all students during class time. “By definition, giving rights to one person means taking rights away from another. If I have the right to paint my house any color I want, my neighbor loses the right not to have to look at a purple house," said Sellers. "Americans clearly come down on the side of freedoms and rights for individuals and groups, and against restrictions. They believe in the right of a student to express herself at graduation, or the right of a church to rent a public school gym for its services, or the right of a public school teacher to wear a Star of David on his lapel. The majority feels those who don’t wish to listen to a prayer at graduation or see the Ten Commandments in a court building have the right to ignore these things – but not the right to stop others from expressing themselves.”

Sellers cautioned, however, that the findings from the study do not indicate that Americans support individual rights and freedoms at all costs. “This research is not a legal document with exact definitions of individual cases, but a generalized idea of what Americans believe,” Sellers explained. “Because people believe in a teacher’s right to wear a religious symbol does not necessarily mean that would apply no matter what the symbol, how it’s displayed, etc. It means in general, they believe teachers should have that right of personal expression. But Americans also take into consideration how their own freedoms impact others. For instance, one-third feel a landlord should have the right to do with his property what he wishes, while two-thirds disagree if that means a homosexual couple loses the right of equal access to housing.”

Although most Americans (83 percent) believe nativity displays should be allowed, 67 percent of born-again Christians say an Islam display on city property, such as a city hall, during Ramadan (a Muslim holiday) should be allowed and only 56 percent of those not born again agree. Other findings showed that 52 percent of Americans overall believe it should be legal for a religious club in a high school or university to determine for itself who can be in their membership, even if certain types of people are excluded, and 33 percent say it should be legal for a landlord to refuse to rent an apartment to a homosexual couple.

The only problem with our religious freedoms is that the people have become detached from the intentions of the Founders in that they no longer know the Constitution, the Constitution's history, or how their government is supposed to work. Widespread constitutional ignorance is evidenced by the following links.

http://tinyurl.com/npt6t
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8

One consequence of widespread constitutional ignorance is that the federal government is walking all over our religious freedoms.

The rest of this post will attempt to explain how FDR's constitutionally unauthorized New Deal federal spending programs actually led to the unlawful limitation of our religious freedoms.

But before I get started on FDR, consider that the underlying problem with our religious freedoms is that Christians cannot expect non-Christian taxpayers to help pay for Bible classes in public schools, for example. Thomas Jefferson put it this way.

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545 http://www.religioustolerance.org/virg_bil.htm

Otherwise, given that the 14th A. protections of everybody in a given community are respected, there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a community from offering Bible classes in its local public schools if taxpayers choose to pay for such classes.

And speaking of the abuse of 14th A. protections, I will not ignore that Christian taxpayers have been unwillingly helping to pay for scientifically unverified evolution ideas to be taught in public school science classrooms for decades now.

Getting back to FDR, he unwittingly gave the federal government the license to ignore the 10th A. when he established his New Deal federal spending programs. This came about because, regardless of FDR's oath to defend the Constitution, his ideas actually showed that he did not understand the Constitution, particularly the Founder's requirement that all federal powers be enumerated in the Constitution. Enumerated powers were smart not only because they limited the powers of the federal government in general, but also because they limited federal government spending, a stumbling block for FDR and his New Deal programs.

FDR needed to rally the states to amend the Constitution to essentially add his federal spending programs, such as SS, to Sec. 8 of Article I in compliance with the 10th Amendment. Instead, FDR made public his plans to stack the Supreme Court to establish his programs, the Constitution be damned. Again, FDR was a constitutional flunky.

What's even sadder than FDR's disregard for the 10th A. protected powers of the states is that constitutional flunky justices would ultimately use FDR's license to ignore the 10th A. to further erode 10th A. protected state powers, particularly state power to address religious issues. And if you want some examples...

Justice Owen Roberts, a Hoover-nominated RINO, expressed his politically correct understanding of the relationship of the 14th A. to the 1st A. in the Cantwell opinion as follows.

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87c

The problem with Justice Roberts' "profound insight" into the 1st and 14th Amendments is that he outrageously misrepresented the intentions of John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment. This is because Bingham had clarified, both before and after the ratification of the 14th A., that the 14th A. was not intended to take away any state's rights. See for yourself.

"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d
"No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

And after Justice Roberts got finished using FDR's license to ignore the 10th A. to misrepresent John Bingham's ideas about the 14th A., Justice Black, a "former" Klansman and FDR appointed justice, used FDR's license to misrepresent the ideas of Thomas Jefferson concerning c&s separation.

Indeed, despite that Justice Black wanted everybody to think that Jefferson's "wall of separation" somehow meant that the establishment clause was intended to be applied to the states, Jefferson had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to reserve government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments. In fact, Jefferson had done so on at least three occasions. Again, see for yourself.

"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo
"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378 http://tinyurl.com/jmpm3
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7

So by quoting Jefferson to help justify his scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause, Justice Black actually quoted probably the worst possible person that he could have quoted to help justify his dirty work.

Are we having fun yet? :^)

As a side note, consider that neither the Cantwell or Everson opinions contain any reference to the 10th A. protected powers of the states to address religious issues (corrections welcome). Corrupt, secular-minded justices evidently regarded the religious aspect of the 10th A. as too much of a loose canon to bring attention to. In fact, with the exception of Jones v. Opelika, 1942, Supreme Court cases where 10th A. protected powers of the states were weighed against FDR's New Deal programs seem to be the last time that the 10th A. was mentioned in state power related Court opinions. Also, it's no surprise that the Roe v. Wade opinion contains no reference to the 10th Amendment (corrections welcome).

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the people need to wise up to the very serious problem of widespread federal government corruption, particularly where the 10th A. protected rights of the states to address religious issues are concerned. The people need to quit sitting on their hands and petition lawmakers, judges and justices who are not upholding their oaths to defend the Constitution, demanding that they resign from their jobs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.