Constitutional Apologetics on Prayer in School

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.

*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!”.

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?

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).

"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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.