How our founding fathers would cringe.
Anyone who believes the Constitution of the United States dictates so-called "separation of church and state" has some very difficult questions to answer.
Remember, the Judiciary isn't supposed to rule on whether something is a good idea, bad idea, or outdated concept. The Constitution lives and breathes through its "elastic clause," the amendment process. The nomination/ratification process involves consensus from a dominant slice of America -- not the whim of nine justices huddled in a room.
A tour of Washington D.C. demonstrates tht rewriters of our history can't whitewash what's etched in stone. Our national monuments, such as the memorials to Lincoln and Washington, are inscribed with biblical passages. This is in the same spirit of worship that causes minting of our coins with "In God we trust."
And what was the thinking with cities named the likes of Corpus Christi, Los Angeles, St. Louis, San Francisco, and numerous other ACLU atrocities?
'Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without no'te or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the college—its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated?'
Our founders venerated God, publicly. The idea of a constitutional mandate of "separation of church and state" is a cruel hoax. It is based solely on an out-of-context quotation of a Thomas Jefferson letter written in 1801. The "wall of separation" Jefferson's letter mentioned was meant to keep the state out of church business. But even if there was a sense of reciprocity in Jefferson's thinking, it was only a letter not a resolution, nor a decree, nor a court order, nor anything more than his personal views.
Some may disdain the idea of prayer in school, but our founding fathers prescribed it. What they did not like and the object of Jefferson's letter was the threat of a state-sponsored denomination. The tyranny of government-run religion was a situation most fled England to escape.
Keep in mind, here is the text of the First Amendment:
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.
You'll notice that this amendment is a restriction on Congress . . . "Congress shall make no law...." We've restrcited God from virtually everything. Then we dare ask: "Where was God on 9/11?"
Since bible study was not a recent phenomenon when the Supreme Court banished it in the early 1960s, it defies belief how it could be termed "unconstitutional." You mean, it took us 160 years to correct the oversight of those who wrote the constitution?
But we can't be obligated to what some guys wrote centuries ago! Times change!
Envisioning this was precisely the reason for the constitution's elastic clause and the purpose of an amendment process.
What's unconscionable if not unconstitutional are court decisions Supreme or not that blatantly circumvent, distort, and violate the foundational principles of "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
But here's where we've plummeted:
– Terry Duschinski
Copyright 1999, Terry Duschinski