Constitutional Apologetics on Prayer in School

Self | 20-October-2001 | Michael Miessen

[Khepera]

I am glad that anti-Catholicism is no longer legal

So when I decide I am against being Catholic (or any other religion because I don't like what they believe or think it is heresy) you think I am breaking the law? Would that not make me Anti-Catholic? So what if I am?

[Notwithstanding]

Perhaps you are not playing semantic games. Perhaps you are.

Nevertheless, here is the clarification:

I should have referred to "official anti-Catholicism" - because officially the state governments had laws that were overtly anti-Catholic. While I know of know federal laws of the time that were likewise anti-Catholic, I would suspect there were a few and certainly the US Constitution would not have prohibited such laws.

Any federal laws that were anti-Methodist or anti-Baptist, for example, would not have been allowd. And it varied from state to state (per the state constitution) which Protestant denominations were afforded priveleges by the state - but Catholicism was at that time legally and officially second rate in every state (with perhaps one exception).

[Non-Sequitur]

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each." - John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison

What is your problem with that?

[Khepera]

Thank you for being more clear about your statement. I understand what you are saying.

[Notwithstanding]

I apologize for seaking so matter-of-factly. I have been reading state constitutions as well as assorted documents regarding the meaning, understanding and practice of "establishment" at the dawn of the USA for a course.

I am blown away with how the recorded history of official state actions and public debates has been ignored - and a personal opinion of Jefferson shared in a private letter has been turned into the official rosetta stone for unlocking the meaning of the establishment clause.

I want to puke.

[Non-Sequitur]

Semantics. Roe V. Wade, for one, is clearly unconstitutional

Unconstitutional because you say it is? The Supreme Court disagrees with you and their opinion counts in this matter not yours. The Supreme Court is charged with ruling on the law, who other then they should determine what the law means? You?

[Non-Sequitur]

Dred Scott was constitutional because the Supreme Court determined that it was. Like it or not, that is the way it is. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Like all interpretations it may be subject to being overturned by a later court. Dred Scott was. Roe v. Wade may be, too, someday. But until then the decision is law and is Constitutional.

[Notwithstanding]

Lets presume a constitutional amendment is passed that mandates that the federal government purchases only school-bus yellow vehicles and includes a provision that this applies to every vehicle from golfcarts used to shuttle Strom Thurmond around the Senate all the way up to the Presidential limousine.

Can the SCOTUS rule that the federal government can purchase whatever color vehicles it so desires? If it does make such a ruling is it constitutional? If it rules that way in 2005 and then reverses its decision in 2006 was the 2005 ruling constitutional? Was the Dred Scott ruling constitutional?

[Khepera]

During the period of time since the early 1900's, people of unscrupulous character who we know as Liberals, have been twisting the meanings of words in an effort to force their will on the majority. They have infiltrated our public schools and courts. In the schools they promote their lies and make the students think they are facts worth learning while ignoring the truth. Many folks who have been “educated” in public schools over the past 80 years have been duped into believing these lies to be the truth. The people who perpetuate these lies on our youth should be rejected as the destroyers they are.

[Non-Sequitur]

If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Supreme Court is the highest judicial court in the land then who should be tasked with interpreting the Constitution if not the Supreme Court?

[Notwithstanding]

Agreed. The truth has been held hostage in our public schools - to some degree - for a century or more. (Even the private schools hav ebeen immune to this.) And certainly this trend has been worse in the last half century.

As I have stated, I am Catholic and am glad that official anti-catholicism is illegal. But I my pleasure in this is virtually destroyed in seeing that the Constitution has been ripped to shreds to achieve this result. And in so doing, a government that was officially pro-Christianity (in a generic sense) has become "anti-religion".

[Notwithstanding]

Correction: Even the private schools have NOT been immune to this.

[Doe Eyes]

So what if the Islamic child has the class bow to Mecca while he leads the class in prayer to Allah.

Its only one day a month.

[Khepera]

So what if the Islamic child has the class bow to Mecca while he leads the class in prayer to Allah.
Its only one day a month.

Actually if the practitioners of the Islamic religion where in the majority in that community then they would all bow to Mecca and I would say a Christian prayer. They would not force me to bow to Mecca because this is the United States and I have rights too. I would however not interrupt their prayers but instead join them by saying my own prayers or if I was an atheist I would just be quiet and read or something.

If it where only one child like you imply then that child would not be leading Christians in prayer he would be praying by himself. Why do liberals have so hard a time seeing these truths for themselves? It is because they are very ignorant since they have been taught and believe lies. They also do not believe in democracy because they wish to force their ideas on everyone else even though they may be in the minority.

[Khepera]

How many times in the Constitution is the word "education" mentioned?

This is a very good point and I myself do not support "Socialist Education" anymore than I support "Socialist Security" or "Socialist Libraries" or any other socialist scheme. The same people who brought us these evil institutions also have fostered the idea that killing babies in the womb is not only "Ok" but desireable.

[Arthur McGowan]

Most of the states had an established (Protestant) church when they ratified the Constitution. The Constitution forbids a federally established church. But the Constitution does not REQUIRE that the states each have an established church, so it is nonsensical to say that getting rid of the state churches means that the Constitution has been ignored. I.e., while the Constitution permits state churches, it does NOT mandate anti-Catholicism or anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism, etc.

Where the Constitution HAS been ignored and/or distorted is the claim that it forbids any state promotion of religion and even private religious acts occurring in public places.