Posted on 10/20/2001 11:46:14 AM PDT by Khepera
There has been a lot of discussion about Prayer in Schools and Government or other public buildings or spaces. Should we allow the posting of the Ten Commandments and or other “Religious” statements or expressions in our public places? Should we allow school officials, students, Parents or, any other people to stand up and publicly lead others in prayer? I have done a lot of research on this topic and I wish to share with you what I have found. I have referenced numerous sources and present my findings here I present this to you as the truth.
First we need a little history about this great country. The United States Constitution is divided into seven Articles. The first three Articles outline the roles and responsibilities of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, respectively. Articles four, five and six pertain to the states, constitutional amendments and the hierarchy of laws, and Article seven deals with the ratification of the Constitution. The remainder of the Constitution consists of a series of amendments which have been adopted over the past 209 years.
The Constitution was not adopted right away by all the states. Men such as Patrick Henry argued passionately against adopting the U.S. Constitution. One of Patrick Henry’s objections to the Constitution was that it did not do enough to protect the liberty of States who joined the union or the liberty of the people as individuals. In a speech delivered on June 9, 1788, Patrick Henry said of the Constitution, “The defects of this system are so numerous and palpable, and so many States object to it, that no union can be expected, unless it be amended... New Hampshire and Rhode Island have rejected it... New York and North Carolina are reported to be strongly against it.”
In order to address the issues raised by those concerned about the rights of the states and the people, a “Bill of Rights” was proposed to guarantee the federal government would not overstep the boundaries in which the framers of the constitution intended it to operate. The first 10 amendments, which make up the Bill of Rights, were ratified on December 15, 1791.
The first amendment guarantees, “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.”
It is important to notice that the words “separation”, “church” and “State” are not even contained in the first amendment. The origin of the phrase “separation of church and State” can be traced back to a letter written by President Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. The Danbury Baptists had heard a rumor that the United States was about to choose a national religion and they wrote to President Jefferson to express their concerns. When Jefferson wrote back to them he explained that the United States couldn’t choose a national religion because the first amendment prohibited the government from passing a law respecting an establishment of religion, “thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” Even though this is not an “Official” document it is clear that what it means is that the government of the United States cannot tell you that you have to be a “Roman Catholic” or a “Jew” or any other particular religion.
For the next 145 years the Supreme Court occasionally referenced Jefferson’s letter and kept it in context. It was not until 1947, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education, that the Supreme Court cited just 8 words of Jefferson’s letter and began promoting the idea of separation of church and State. By 1958, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case of Baer v. Kolmorgen, Justice Gallagher wrote, “Much has been written in recent years concerning Thomas Jefferson’s reference in 1802 to ‘a wall of separation between church and State’... Jefferson’s figure of speech has received so much attention that one would almost think at times that it is to be found somewhere in our Constitution.”
The problem with the first amendment is that the word “religion” was never defined in the constitution. President Jefferson viewed the wording of the first amendment as a protection for religious freedom. The Court agreed for nearly 150 years before they began to redefine religion as meaning nearly anything with religious overtones. In 1962 the Court decided the first amendment prohibited school prayer and in 1963 the Court decided the first amendment prohibited the bible from being in public schools. Then, in 1980, the Court decided it was a violation of the first amendment to even have a copy of the Ten Commandments hanging in the classroom.
The 1980 decision is especially interesting when you consider the words of James Madison. Madison was the 4th President of the United States and he was known as the “Chief Architect of the Constitution” because he spoke 161 times in the constitutional convention. One of Madison’s most famous quotes states, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
Returning to the intentions of Thomas Jefferson, on three different occasions he negotiated treaties with the Indians on behalf of our nation. Each time as part of these treaties it was mandated that the United States Government supply every Indian a Judeo-Christian Bible which was printed and distributed through the government printing office in Washington DC. These bibles where printed and distributed by the government using public funds. The first public schools where started in Washington DC and the only books which where printed and provided (by the government) for the schools where the Bible and a popular Christian Hymnal Written by Isaac Watts. (The Watts Hymnal is still in use today) both books where intended to be taught in school. These where government supported documents.
So it has been established that, the founders of our nation never intended for the types of restrictions on our freedom to practice our religion that have been imposed on us today. (Remember Christians are the Majority). It has been established that they intended that the laws of our country (and we as individuals) are to be guided by the 10 Commandments that you so wantonly desire to be removed from public view. We know that in fact the Government of the United States was intended by our founders to be in fact based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. This does not mean that you have to be a “Christian” and recite Christian Prayers.
This is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. And we are in the Bible belt. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect - somebody chanting Hare Krishna? If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer. If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer. If I went to a Ping-Pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha. And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. As a matter of fact in certain communities all around the United States I may hear many of the religions I have just mentioned and they would be the majority in that community.
Does this mean that you can pray to what ever deity you wish and in the name of whatever religion you hold dear. Yes! During the period of “Prayer” in the Christian community when the majority of people around you are saying “Dear heavenly father who art in heaven” You may also start your prayer. When the majority of people around you say “Amen” you must end your prayer. This is because you wish to be polite and not disrupt those around you. Now if your community is made up of mostly Jews or Hindus or some other religion then that religion will be the dominant religion in your community and the “Christians” will have to listen to your prayers while they are saying their own. They may also have to take days off (From school or maybe even work) which honor your religion because of your communities majority status. This is called “Majority Rules” or by other names a “Democracy”.
"But what about the atheists?" is another argument. What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 to 60 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman, or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. In other words be polite and no one will be hurt.
So the Liberals will tell you that it is all in the Interpretation. I would like to address this now. There is a big difference between Interpret and Translate. Translate is to move the meaning of the words in question into another language while keeping the same meaning. (This could also include factors like “Context”) Interpretation on the other hand, is either an attempt to understand words which we do not understand the meaning of or, when we try to change the meaning of words that we do understand.
An example of this would be found in the play Romeo and Juliet, when Juliet says “Romeo, Romeo, where fore art thou Romeo?”. What do you think this means? Most people today will answer this by saying that she was asking Romeo where he was. Bugs Bunny says “Here I am!”. Now this is an interpretation based on Ignorance. In Elizabethan English, which is what this play was written in, Juliet by saying “Where fore art Thou” was actually asking Romeo “By what right do you call yourself Romeo?”. She was asking this because it was by his name that they where forbidden to be together.
Interpretation is what the “Liberals” use to change the meanings of words, that we all know and understand, to suit their own desires. The words in the Constitution and Bill of rights have not lost their meaning over the last 200 years. We all recognize and understand the meaning of these words.
Again, they say “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.” These words are clear.
When you change the meaning of words which are clear then you are a liar. The “Liberals” are notorious for this exact thing. President Clinton was the “Greatest Liberal leader” of the last century and look at how many times he lied and twisted words for his own selfish desires. Liberals do not promote “Democracy” they are not “Truthful” and they do not care about anybody but themselves. To further illustrate this point I would like to point out that even in the light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary “Liberals” will reject the truth.
Conservatives that say they believe that the removal of prayer from the schools is because of the “Separation of church and state” are either too ignorant to serve public office or they are “Lying Liberals” you can take your pick. Either way they should be removed from office as they have betrayed the Constitution of the United States of America and have become “Traitors”. They have violated their oath of office and should be condemned.
All laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion or freedom of speech in public places (in particular, Schools, and Government Buildings) should be Ignored as they are Un-Constitutional and therefore Un-Lawful.
If you take the time to do some research, you will see that the exponential increase in public school violence, teen pregnancy, foul language, and a general lack of respect for others, all started at exactly the time the Supreme Court threw prayer and Bible reading out of the schools. We told God we didn't need HIM, and the results speak for themselves. For this nation or the people in it to let a few miscreants and heathens destroy the very foundation of our country (putting our families and neighbors at risk) all because they want to be shielded from the truth about their Sinful and destructive behaviors, is a national tragedy.
Lets put an end to it.
*NOTE: Because I know people will ask, “what does Sui Juris mean?” I include this explanation. Sui Juris is a Latin term which means “Someone who can handle their own affairs.” or “I’ll be my own judge!” or “I’ll be the judge of that!”.
The attack on the American religious tradition comes from the same circles that attack all other aspects of our traditional culture and values.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) - Court overturns Gobitis but is broader in its scope. No one can be forced to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance if it violates the individual conscience.
McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) - Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Zorach v. Clausen, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) - Court finds that release time from public school classes for religious instruction does not violate the establishment clause.
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) - Court finds school prayer unconstitutional.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) - Court says the state cannot ban the teaching of evolution.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) - Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) - Court finds state law enforcing a moment of silence in schools had a religious purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.
Edwards v. Aquillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) - Court finds state law requiring equal treatment for creationism has a religious purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.
Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990) - The court rules that the Equal Access Act does not violate the First Amendment. Public schools that receive federal funds and maintain a "limited open forum" on school grounds after school hours cannot deny "equal access" to student groups based upon "religious, political, philosophical, or other content."
Lee v. Weisman, 112 SCt. 2649 (1992) - Court finds prayer at public school graduation ceremonies violates the establishment clause and is therefore unconstitutional.
Lamb's Chapel et al. v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993) - Court says that school districts cannot deny churches access to school premises after-hours, if the district allowed the use of its building to other groups.
Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, (1994) - Court states that the New York State Legislature cannot create a separate school district for a religious community.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, (2000) - Court rules that student-led prayers at public school football games violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Good News Club v. Milford Central School, (2001) - Court rules that Milford Central School cannot keep Good News Club from using its facilities because the school had created a limited public forum and prohibiting the religious club was viewpoint discrimination.
Please refer to the section of my article regarding Interpreting things.
So you're starting with that nonsense again are you? "generally come to mean" isn't the same as the truth, is it? What you're looking for so hard just isn't in the Constitution, and all your twisting of the facts doesn't make it so. What part of "prohibiting the free excercise thereof" don't you understand? Take your silly anti religious sentiments over to DU where they will be appreciated. You're a sad, sick person.
The definition, however, canbot be established by review of prior cases. It is in fact a priori, based on Black's(and other judges') desire to end political discussion about aid to Catholic Schools and impose a national rule on the states.
Where is this written?
I thought this would be a slam dunk, but
it isn't, is it?
To the judges, the
ministers of this power, it belongs to interpret all acts of the legislature,
agreeably to the true principles of the constitution
I don't think the supreme court really gets into interpreting
acts of legislature, does it? If the law is being enforced as
written, the defendants don't have much hope outside
proving unconstitutionality. See the Nichols thing,
wherein his constitutional remedies ended when the SC
ruled the FBI files were immaterial, regardless of the
intentions of the law being challenged, ie habeas corpus.
The legislative history of a bill usually provides
an indication of the framer intentions, so that
judicial interpretation is at a minimum, I would
think.
Isn't it more accurate to say that the SC
interprets the Constitution such that it
casts a light on the legislation in question
and renders it either within Constitutional
limits or not?
The prohibition of "Establishment" of religion absolutely was understood by EVERYONE of that era as meaning all forms of Protestant Christianity were to be treated equally and none favored by any government.
In practice this meant that that the majority religion in a town could collect TAXES to support the local denominational church even from members of another denomination (unless the local member of a minority denomination had a certificate of his belonging and attending another denomination's church).
In practice it also meant that Catholicism, Judaism and Quakerism were LEGALLY substandard to basic vanilla Protestantism.
Anti-Catholicism (actually pro-generic-Protestantism) was very much a part of the USA's founding.
While I am glad that anti-Catholicism is no longer legal, I regret that the COnstitution has been ignored in doing so. Inother words, I am not willing to accept the good outcome at the expense of destroying the Constitution.
The USA has always overtly and officially relied upon God. Those who declare otherwise are truly very ignorant - though understandably so given the Supreme Court's pretense over the last 140 years that increasingly ignores the facts.
Those truly interested in the facts can freepmail me for the references.
So how does this negate my ability to freely exercise my religious beliefs by standing up in school and reciting a prayer or leading a group in prayer? How does this negate my right to freely speak of my beliefs in school or any other public place? The lies of the Liberal courts are contrary to the constitution of the United States.
SCOTUS opinions actually contain bald-faced and absolute errors (I would say lies) as to the meaning of "establishment" and the historical context of that word.
] It is truly enough to make one rage or cry when one realizes how the lie has been foisted upon generations of school kids who propagate it and believe for the rest of their lives.
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.