Constitutional Apologetics on Prayer in School

Self | 20-October-2001 | Michael Miessen

[Khepera]

Constitutional Apologetics on School Prayer
Michael Miessen (Sui Juris*)

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!”.

[Doe Eyes]

I missed the part in which the majority religion determined the prayers the students were to recite. Where does that part come from. The first amendment?

[Non-Sequitur]

Of course not because the Constitution is clear on the matter. Yellow vehicles are required by the Constitution so yellow vehicles it is. But not all issues are so crystal clear. That is where an interpretation of what the Constitution means is required and the Supreme Court is tasked to issue that interpretation. Sometimes they get it wrong. But right or wrong, their decision is still the law until some future Supreme Court modifies or overrules their decision.

[Non-Sequitur]

Really? So in your opinion the Supreme Court had no right to step in and issue a decision on Bush v. Gore? When Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront" I'm sure that he had no idea that he was acting outside his Constitutional duties as outlined by tex-oma. So then what the heck is George Bush doing in Al Gores house?

[Dumb_Ox]

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.

Would you happen to know good books on the topic? A local scholar recommended to me The American Myth of Individualism, but I haven't stopped by the library yet. There is a review of that book over here which might merit posting here on FR.

[Non-Sequitur]

So you don't think that Bush v. Gore constitutes an interpretation of the meaning of due process protection outlined in the Constitution?

[Twodees]

You're right, of course. The document is very short, succinct and written in very plain, spare English. It is not a collection of parables, nor is it written in Martian. No "interpretation" is necessary for anyone reasonably fluent in the English language.

[goodieD]

Exactly!

[Notwithstanding]

I am looking it up at Amazon. Back in a minute.

[Notwithstanding]

Professor Bradley wrote this in 1987. He is now a tenured law professor at Notre Dame and is also teaching 2 courses at Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor - where he also sits on the Board of Governors.

Church-State Relationships in America. --

---

-->

Church-State Relationships in America.
By Gerard V. Bradley
Legal Studies, Contributions in, No. 37 (ISSN: 0147-1074)
Greenwood Press. Westport, Conn. 1987. 180 pages
LC 86-27149. ISBN 0-313-25494-X. BYC/ $49.95
Out of Stock, no restock date (Status Information Updated 10/18/2001)

Add to Shopping Cart

** Description **

"In a well-researched, scholarly, impressive public policy thesis, Bradley argues in seven chapters that the US Supreme Court `has been fundamentally in error since (Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S.1) 1947' in its interpretations of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.... In arguing from `the plain meaning of words,' Bradley's reasoning is often disingenuous-e.g., citing the amendment requirements (Article Five) for his thesis that `the Court's wall of separation and complete ban on aid to religion could (not) have mustered constitutional majorities'.... excellent appendixes, and a good bibliographic essay. Upper-division and graduate students."

Choice

Although the Supreme Court has stated that the framers of the Constitution erected a "wall of separation" between church and state, history shows that collective political activity in the United States has been and remains an intensely religious enterprise. Despite seemingly clear agreement on the principle of separation, what that principle entails in controversies involving not only the activities and demands of religious groups but the Court itself has proved contentious. Professor Bradley's book is the most comprehensive analysis of the subject attempted to date. It offers a detailed exploration of the historical meaning of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and church-state relations from the founding period down to the controversies that are a feature of our modern political life.

** Table of Contents **

-- Acknowledgments
-- Introduction
-- Everson's History: The One (and Only?) Justification of No Aid
-- The Sacred Canopy: Law and Lexicon of Church-State in the Founding Era
-- Ratification of the Constitution: The "Whale's" Demands
-- In Congress: Throwing a Tub, or Tubs, to the "Whale"
-- Ratification: The "Whale" Satisfied
-- The Founder's Worldview: The Sacred Canopy Explained
-- The Meaning of the Words: Yesterday and Today
-- Appendixes
-- Bibliographical Essay
-- Index

** Author **

GERARD V. BRADLEY, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign co-authored Labor Racketeering and has written numerous articles published in law journals.

Add to Shopping Cart

Greenwood Home Page | Recent Titles | Catalog Index | Keyword Search | ISBN Search | Subject Browse | Series Browse

This page and all its contents are © 2001 Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Greenwood Publishing Group, 88 Post Road West, Westport CT 06881, (203) 226-3571

E-mail to: webmaster@greenwood.com

[JMJ333]

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?

In this day and age it would be more accurate to say that the SC legislateS from the bench [like much of the judicial branch], especially in terms of abortion and the 4th amendment, but also on a slew of other issures.

Did you ever find out why there has never been a referendum on abortion?

[Dumb_Ox]

Thanks!

A related thread: Religion and the Constitution

[Notwithstanding]

"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. "

You are not making any sense. The federal Constitution included anti-establishment language. This meant that vanilla Protestant Christianity was acknowledged and even funded in the form of chaplains for instance - but no sectarian notions of Christanity ("sects" were religions such as Quakerism or Catholicism) could be supported by the federal government. The Establishment prohibition was seen only as preventing something such as a federal declaration that Anglicanism was the federal religion - BUT IT DID NOT PROHIBIT the declaration that the nation was a Christian nation nor did it prohibit federal financial support of non-sectarian Christian activity. In fact federal actions did indeed support religious activity. Thus the federal Constitution was (is) anti-Catholic in that it allowed and even afforded (affords) special federal status to vanilla Protestanism and explicitly denied such status to Judaism, Catholicism, Quakerism, etc. Quite simply, spending federal dollars on Methodist activity was allowed by federal Constistution (though I am not certain it ever occired) - spending them on Catholic activity was prohibited.

As I pointed out in #18 and #20, the state constitutions also understood that there would be no Establishment if a state government were to afford special status to vanilla Protestanism over Judaism, Catholicism, Quakerism, etc. And states were actually free to have state religions or Established religions - as each state Constitution allowed. Virtually all of the original states had in 1787 and for decades afterwards official anti-Catholic (pro-vanilla-Protestant) laws and state funding of Protestant church activities (and prohibitions of such money going to Catholic, Jewish, Quaker activities). The federal Constitution originally (prior to the 13/14/15 Amendments that followed the Civil War) restricted states in no way regarding religion and state.

Once the jurists succeeded in turning the meaning of "establishment" on its head, then all constitutions relying on the universal traditional definition were likewise turned on their head. This definitional change had the welcome effect of prohibiting offcial anti-Judaism, anti-Catholicism etc. at fed & state level. But in doing so the traditional understanding and juridical practice of acknowledging the Christian nature of the USA was destroyed.

And of course eventually the establishment clause was held to be applicable to the states as well as the fed govt.

[Notwithstanding]

BTW, Professor Bradley is also heads up the Religion section of the national Federalist Society.

[gcruse]

In this day and age it would be more accurate to say that the SC legislateS from the bench [like much of the judicial branch],
especially in terms of abortion and the 4th amendment, but also on a slew of other issures.

  But do they do it by interpreting the Constitution or by interpreting the legislation? That
is the question at hand.  Is it that you cannot compare two objects and interpret only
one of them?  Is it a matter of logic that, in order to interpret legislation vis a vis
constitutionality, one must simultaneously interpret the Constitution?  In which case
the question,   "Where does it say the SC is to interpret the Constitution?" has to
be answered, "It is logically impossible to judge legislation otherwise."

Did you ever find out why there has never been a referendum on abortion?

Is making common cause with all those against totally permissive abortion a Catholic position? The bishops' support of the
Hatch Amendment was a move in this direction. But generally, the pro-life movement has been for an absolute prohihition of
abortion. If such a total solution is not possible in our pluralistic society, and, in fact, was voted down by national referendum in
Catholic Italy, will Catholics cooperate with other Americans of good will and ethical conviction to work for a more restrictive
abortion law?

Vis a vis America,

          On November 3, 1970, Washington voters approved
          Referendum 20, which legalized abortion in the early
          months of pregnancy. Fifteen other states had liberalized
          their abortion laws by that time, but Washington was the
          first — and so far the only — state to do so through a
          vote of the people. It was a triumphant moment in a
          campaign that had its genesis in 1967, in the office of
          Seattle psychologist Samuel Goldenberg, who had been
          asked to help two patients, one middle-aged and the
          other a young college student, both desperate for a way
          to end an unwanted pregnancy.

[Notwithstanding]

Italians are hugely though nominally Catholic - which says nothing of their adherance or lack therof to Catholic doctrines and mores.

Italy also has the lowest birth rate in the West - which indicates their being Catholic is lttle more than a label of heritage - not belief or conviction.

[gcruse]

The question of taking a vote on abortion arose with Ann Coulter. Since that is the nature of initiative and referendum, JMJ333 and I wondered if, in fact, such a vote has ever been taken. The Italian part just surfaced in my search. Though it seems if an overwhelmingly Catholic nation voted that way, a diverse society such as ours would be even less likely to prohibit abortion. Hence, Ann Coulter's demand for a vote on it might be a Phyrric (sp?) victory.

[1L]

since the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the meaning of the Constitution. Where is this written? Marbury v. Madison