Rewriting the First Amendment

Republicans and Conservatives for America

Author's Note: PA Conservative's May 14, 2005 posting was titled: "Welcome Back to the Age of Persecution." While I do not disagree with either the title or the content of the posting, I submit that the "Age of Persecution" never really left. This posting will explain why I believe this is so.

Although the focus of the PA Conservative's posting centered around a particular School District in Pennsylvania, the controversy would not have existed if it were not for the activities of a religion-hostile judiciary.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That simple and straight forward statement has been turned on its head, and the blame for this situation falls right at the steps of an activist judiciary. One simply has to wonder why those judges responsible for the erosion of Christian and Biblical principles from our country haven't been impeached and removed from office. Let's look at the record.

The rewriting of our First Amendment began in 1947 with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision of Everson v. Board of Education, where Justice Hugo Black stated that "The first amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." This infamous decision has put America in a moral tail spin that continues to this day.

The downward spiral got deeper when in 1962 the Supreme Court handed its Engel v. Vitale decision, which struck down a 22-word denominationally neutral prayer which mentioned God's Name one time.

The Bible was the next domino to fall, with the Supreme Court's pronuncement of Abington v. Schempp in 1963.

But let's not forget that the lower courts had a role to play in this mess as well, because in 1965, in the case of Reed v. VanHoven the United States District Court for Western District of Michigan (237 F.Supp 48) ruled that it was OK for a student to pray over his lunch, so long as NO ONE could tell he/she was praying. How ridiculous?? It's unconstitutional for a student to pray out loud before having lunch.

In 1979 the United States District Court in South Dakota in the case of Florey v. Sioux Falls School District ruled that it was unconstitutional to ask a kindergarten class whose birthday is celebrated at Christmas. And the list goes on and gets much worse.

In 1980 the next casualty was the public posting of the 10 Commandments when the Supreme Court decided the Stone v. Graham case. In the Court's wisdom: "We conclude that Kentucky's statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school rooms has no secular legislative purpose, and is therefore unconstitutional."

The Court concluded their pronuncement by declaring: "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause."

All this and many more instances point to a clear pattern of persecution against any display or involvement of Christian beliefs and principles in our public lives. So in conclusion, it is not necessary to "welcome back the age of persecution," because it never really left and unfortunately it is doing very well!