-
-
States' Liberty Party Online Store
-
\
|
Let Freedom Ring |
Has the
Prohibiting of School Prayer Denied Citizens "the Free Exercise
Thereof"?
Clear violation of the church and state clause? Let's try one more.
This one's real easy, right? Jill and Bob's little boy cannot be required to partake in a violent game, and therefore football must be entirely banned from the school. The comparison is just a little unfair. Religion is protected by the Constitution and football is not. The First Amendment requires that Congress pass "no law respecting an establishment of religion" nor prohibit "the free exercise thereof", but allows Congress to make all the laws they wish concerning football, so we must disallow prayer for all of the kids, and Little Bob Jr. will have to sit and watch the other kids play football. In simple terms, football is protected because it's not. Make sense? State Court vs. Federal Parents Jill and Bob will need to take their suit to state, not federal court, because the Constitution gives this jurisdiction to the states. Let's see what happened when Springfield's state supreme court found against Jill and Bob on both prayer and football. This particular state has no restrictions on religion in their constitution, and Principal Jim was following valid county board of education guidelines. The State will not alter school policy, and little Bob Jr. must play football and pray in the morning alongside the other kids whether he and his parents like it or not! Enter the 14th Amendment The Fourteenth Amendment had nothing to do with religion, it was for abolishing slavery. The phrase we're interested in is:
Now we need to back up and take another look at Principal Jim's school policy mandating school prayer, because the immunity of the states from first amendment prohibitions of Congress are no longer absolute. Unlike Congress, Springfield's state government is not barred from establishing a religion, but any such religion cannot diminish the "privileges or immunities of citizens". More, the state can no longer "prohibit the free exercise thereof" any more than they can continue to hold slaves. Principal Jim's mandatory school prayer has overstepped federal law. Bob's now in federal court.Jill and Bob again attempt to have both prayer and football removed from school curriculum so that little Bob Jr. doesn't feel left out seeing other kids doing what he cannot do, but a majority of the justices are football fans and reject the couple's argument. As for prayer, they haven't any jurisdiction because Congress has no authority to regulate it, nor can they abridge the "privileges and immunities" of the other kids. Jill and Bob lose again and now demand that an exception be made for just their son. "What if tomorrow someone argues they don't want their child learning math?", inquires the hypothetical justice hearing Jill and Bob's case. No one disagrees, not even Bob, that Congress cannot pass a law banning school prayer, so on what authority can the court act? Bob states his Fourteenth Amendment case, arguing that his right to "free exercise thereof" is protected by the anti-slavery law both for football and prayer. The justices agree that even a violent sport violates Jill and Bob's religious views and find in their favor on both counts. Bob, however, continues to fume because his tax money is continuing to be used for funding apparatus for a violent sport. Why did Jill and Bob fail to ban religion from public schools, contrary to real judicial decisions? Our hypothetical argument relied on the applicable constitutional text, but purposely ignored a landmark 1947 Supreme Court ruling which, using the same law, applied the the Fourteenth Amendment as merely an extension of the First Amendment, which it is not. No law, excepting the new law created by the court, prohibits the states from establishing a religion. In fact, Congress is constitutionally barred from passing such a law, and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of rights applies equally to all citizens, including the majority. The prohibition of prayer from public schools is a violation of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the first of which protects religion from federal interference, and the latter from suppression by state and local government. Court interpretation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments bars religion from public institutions for no reason but that it was given special protections from federal interference by the founding fathers. What about Public Funding? By law, Congress cannot prohibit monies they have granted to the states from being used for religious purposes. This is not in dispute. If Congress cannot block citizens use of public funds for religion, then neither can the courts. The Court must look elsewhere than the First Amendment for an authority to act. The Fourteenth Amendment does not bar the use of state funds for religious use, but it disallows the government from making or enforcing any law which "shall abridge the privileges or immunities" of United States citizens, who at the time of passage, enjoyed a First and Tenth Amendment right to unlimited federal freedom to establish state religions through their elected representatives and school board directors. If the Supreme Court continues to feel that they must create a wall of separation between church and state instead of a hands-off policy allowing the "free exercise thereof", then they have more work to accomplish, because they have not yet thoroughly regulated religion. Police and fire departments must cease their protection of places of worship, and the church will need to look elsewhere than subsidized utility companies for their water and power, so that government does not become a conspirator in the establishing of religion. To effect a complete separation, worshippers must be required to find a separate but equal means for transporting themselves to their places of worship, so that public roads and transit systems maintained with taxpayer funds remain free of churchgoers. "No Worshippers" signs will need be erected along streets and highways, and new laws made to enforce ticketing of violators. This must be accomplished by the courts, so that Congress passes no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Jill and Bob's "privileges or immunities" to practice religion free from government interference allowed them to roll back the school policy mandating prayer, but in real life, the parents that had instructed Principal Jim to initiate prayer at the first bell of class found their First Amendment rights denied. — States' Liberty Party, June 24, 2002 If you'd like to see more articles like this published, click here.
|
Send mail to
webmaster@liberty-ca.org with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
