The full amendment was about more than just one's right to pray at public events. It also made it a right for children to refuse to do school work based on religious beliefs.This makes Missouri's schools a lightning rod for the church-state debate and a veritable treasure trove for lawyers looking to work for whatever side of the debate is willing to pay them.
The very liberal Think Progress reported,
Critics have warned the amendment will indeed open the door to taxpayer-funded lawsuits. “This is going to be a nightmare for school districts, which will end up getting sued by individuals on both sides of church-state debate,” said Alex Luchenitser, associate legal director for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.In the end we have given over control of our schools to someone else, this time the court. And we will pay heavily for it as our districts face complaint after complaint, suit after suit, because it is no longer a taxpayer choice or the will of the district, it is a constitutional right.
That right of the student to refuse to do school work because of religious objections was the killer for me...why I voted NO.
ReplyDeleteThe Abridging Civil Liberties Union would have us believe that the constitution prohibits the practice of religion in public places. What the First Amendment actually says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF:". What the ACLU and its wannabes have done is substitute Judicial activists and other intectually and ethically challenged individuals to MAKE these laws, clearly against Article I Section 1 which states, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." This amendment is an attempt to clarify FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not freedom FROM religion. ANY judge who makes a contrary (and by necessity convoluted) decision should be impeached. Presidents and judges cannot create law. They can only (legally) enforce the laws which were legally passed. To do otherwise is to break the oath each has taken. The oath each and every federal employee takes before assuming ANY duties, and which each legislator and judge takes, is similar (if not exactly alike) Article II Section 1: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I...will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." To ignore the requirements of these oaths is seditious.
ReplyDeleteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof--
ReplyDeleteOr Prohibiting the Free Exercise Thereof--
Looks pretty straightforward
The question becomes will the Court decide based on the plain language of the Constitution, or will it rule based on 200 years of twisted decisions based on previous twisted decisions until in many cases, it's become difficult if not impossible to find any relationship between how a court rules and what the Constitution actually says.
Go to AMERICAN MINUTE by BILL FEDERER of today 08/11 where he writes of the Equal Access Act of Aug. 11, 1984. I was not aware of it.
ReplyDelete