Support GJCN.org

Help us grow!
Bible Top 1000

Prayer, The Pledge, God and the Courts

It seems obvious to me that the constitution of the United States under the first amendment clearly restrains congress from making any laws regarding the establishment of a religion. “Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of a religion”. This is the only hint of the separation of church and state which exists in the constitution.

The supreme court always uses this “Establishment clause” as the basis for banning prayer or nativity scenes in schools at sporting events on campus or any other state supported event and in so doing actually violate the very amendment which they are trying to uphold. Now the 9th circuit court is trying to ban the word God from the Pledge of Allegiance.

The next line in the 1st amendment says ” or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This phrase makes it clear that congress and the courts have no right to ban anything that has to do with religious freedom of expression. Prayer, Nativity scenes and the Pledge are certainly a free exercise of religion. A court can only rule on the laws which congress or state and local legislatures have passed and cannot make up laws of their own. Of course, state and local laws are subject to the constitution as well.

The courts, therefore, cannot rule on laws which the constitution says cannot exist other than to strike them down as being unconstitutional. Persons offended by hearing prayers or seeing Nativity scenes or hearing the pledge cannot be the basis for any ban under the constitution. Banning a citizens prayer anywhere in the country is indeed prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

The constitution cannot be construed as saying that prayer has to be on private property or in a church or silent. I must also mention that the constitution gives no one the right to make other people be silent which is exactly what the courts are doing.

Do not the children of this country have the freedom of speech in prayer or the pledge of allegiance? If pornography, which offends many people, can be construed as freedom of speech then why can’t speech containing the word God be protected as well.

Notice that a careful reading of the first amendment puts no restrictions on religion whatsoever. All of the restrictions are put on congress and therefore the courts as well. The courts have badly misinterpreted the 1st amendment as putting the restrictions on the people and their religious expression and they continue to make rulings banning anything with God in it. That is why they are in a quandary today. If they rule on a ban they infringe on the rights of religious people and freedom of religious expression and speech. If they don’t ban they (in their eyes) they infringe on the atheists. If they had simply stayed out of things to start with and not started this banning business, as the constitution requires, there would be no confusion. Everyone would have their rights of expression to believe as they wish.

A religion is not established by allowing citizens (even government workers) to freely express their religious beliefs anywhere they choose. It would only be established if congress made laws establishing an official religion i.e. Catholic, Baptist, Methodist etc. The constitution only bans lawmaking not God.

“God” is not a religion or a church and therefore should not be separated from anything. He is the basis for all religions except Atheism/evolution/humanism. Atheist don’t believe in any God so why should they not be required to respect the beliefs of others who do.

The framers of the Constitution understood these things and this is the reason the restrictions are put on congress. The courts are in violation of the constitution by prohibiting the FREE exercise of religion. How can we say that this is a country with the freedom of religion when our government bans God out of nearly everything.

If the atheists don’t like hearing the word God because it offends them or their children so what. I hear the word atheist, agnostic, muslim, evolution (tantamount to atheism) and other things which I do not believe in everyday as do children.

In schools evolution (implying atheism) is the only thing taught concerning origins but the atheists say that if their children hear the word God they might feel alienated from the rest of the class.

So, why cant I say the same thing about evolution and have it banned.

Instead of any ban why not simply have a homeroom for children who want to pray or recite the pledge and another homeroom for ones who do not wish to. With evolution there is no choice. It’s evolution or fail. With the pledge or prayer there is a choice and what you believe doesn’t affect your grades. Evolution is a religion not a science. Don’t be hoodwinked by evolutionist that it is science. Real science is observable, falsifiable and repeatable. Evolution is none of these. It is the religion of humanism and is documented in the humanist manifesto. It is also the atheists godless religion. One religion cannot ban another.

The Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to ban anything that offends him or his children. If it did almost everything would be banned including freedom because it is offensive to some people. The Constitution does, however, guarantee that there will be no laws passed and therefore no court rulings banning any aspect of religious expression.