Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Our U.S. and state constitutions are documents which establish our self-imposed government. What rights does government have; what ability to constrain the people; how it will operate; what limitations are placed upon it? These are all answered in the document itself. It is a very simple document to read. Everyone should read it carefully, regularly; the beginning of the new year is an excellent time.
There are three things we will address today. The first part of the First amendment, the 10th amendment and Article 1, Section 8.
1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;….”
10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Article 1, Section 8 lists the powers of Congress. Nowhere is anything listed about restricting the rights of the people to practice religion or to exhibit displays of their religious beliefs.
From these limitations, how does one get to saying prayers in schools are un-constitutional? Indeed, how does one get to the common cliché: ‘separation of church and state?'
Let us say Ms. Jones, a teacher at Trump High School, says a prayer to her homeroom class. How, under the U.S. Constitution, is that illegal? She is an employee of a local government. She is operating in a building owned by the taxpayers of that local government. What gives the federal government a right to be involved? The simple answer is there is no legal right, but those opposing what she does distort the law to suit themselves. They will say: “We must have separation of church and state, the Constitution says so.” But the Constitution says no such thing.
She has operated in a local manner, under state authority. The U.S. government is restricted from having any opinion by the 10th Amendment and the fact that the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. government no authority in the matter. However, those facts do not suit those who would take religion from our lives. For them the Constitution inhibits what they wish to foist on others. To accomplish their personal agenda, they distort the meaning of the 1st Amendment. They pretend that Ms. Jones, by saying a prayer, is ‘Congress making a law.’ Being more subtle, they pretend Ms. Jones, in saying this prayer, represents the U.S. government and as a representative of the U.S. government, must not show any opinion favoring religion. ‘Church and state must be separated.’
Really? Yes, really. This is what we, the people, have allowed. These illegal restrictions upon religious practices is what those who oppose religion have led us to. One must wonder why they oppose religion so strenuously. But the truth is, they don’t. They just don’t want the people practicing religions other than their own.
Merriam Webster online has as its fourth definition of religion: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”
Now if working diligently to restrict people who teach, or to stop others people from displaying mager scenes or anything similar, does not fit this definition of religion, what does? Certainly, those proposing these rules are working with ‘ardor and faith.’ Indeed, those working to restrict the rights of Christians want to replace Christianity with what they themselves believe. They use courts to establish rulings which are, by common belief, the making of law. When these are federal courts, we end up with the exact opposite of the 1st Amendment. The actual effect of these court rulings ostensibly prohibiting religious practices is that the courts are instead making law respecting an establishment of religion. What they are doing is requiring the people to practice the beliefs of a cause held to with ardor and faith. Usurping the authority of Congress, ignoring the meaning of the 1st Amendment, these religious fanatics, with complicity of judges who believe similarly, make laws establishing atheism as the state religion. They ignore the limits on government we, the people, have established through our Constitutions, yet the people accept their rulings.
We should ignore these rulings, but, unfortunately, there are many in positions of authority who support this usurpation of our right of religious freedom. Principals, superintendents, mayors, councilmen, county commissioners, coaches, senators, congressmen and governors are regularly found who support the advocacy of atheism through government judicial fiat. They, then, are part of the problem and need to be replaced with those who actually support the Constitution as written.
We, the people, need to remind ourselves regularly what we agreed to allow government to do. Beyond those limited actions, anything government does is illegal, but it is up to us to stop it. In this case we must reject Atheism or any state sponsored religion, and follow the Constitution. We should remind ourselves that the ‘free exercise thereof’… is what we should believe and practice.
Lewis Guignard is a resident of Crouse.