FREEDOM TO PRAY

Friday, August 14, 2009

I was distressed to read an article in the Washington Times today concerning a Principal and an Athletic Director at a northern Florida high school who are facing criminal charges for conducting a lunchtime prayer at their school…that’s right, CRIMINAL charges that carry a fine of $5,000 and up to six months in jail if they are convicted. The alleged incident took place at a lunch for school employees and local booster-club members at the school but after school hours. There were no students present at the event. This was the result of an ACLU complaint to U.S. District Court Judge M. Casey Rodgers who then issued a contempt order for the two men. The contempt order also included another employee, a female clerical assistant, who reportedly asked her husband to say a blessing for a meal at a local naval base gathering that included some students but was not during school hours. Trial is set for next week in Pensacola, Florida.

I hope the citizens of Santa Rosa county will come to their senses and demand that the trial for these good citizens be cancelled and charges dropped. Otherwise they can expect to find an ACLU attorney banging on their door after prayer services no matter where they are.

The issue here is the same old ACLU vs. Christians line and the “separation of church and state”. One has to really put on their convoluted thinking cap to make this episode fit ACLU logic. It goes something like this: Separation of the state from religion is implied (although some people incorrectly think it is so stated) in the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; the public school (as an institution of the government that is supported by public taxes) is the “state” and anyone practicing their religion (which includes prayer) is the “church”; anything an individual does on school property falls under the “separation” logic. Got it so far? Good!

Now comes the tricky part. The first amendment to the Constitution reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXECERCISE THEREOF {emp. added} ; 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".

Careful reading of the text of the amendment reveals that it does NOT require the separation of the state from an established religion (ie., “church”), but rather prohibits congress from making any law prohibiting the exercise of religious freedom or abridging freedom of speech. Thus, the basis of the ACLU protest is not valid and in fact is just opposite of the intended right of freedom of religion and expression granted by the first amendment.

No doubt constitutional revisionists will argue that it is just not so, but it is clear that our founding fathers wanted it just the way they said in the amendment. Revisionists will also argue that individual rights must be sacrificed to the common good even when they have difficulty in defining what is actually good about it (is this ringing a bell with the healthcare debacle?). These revisionists are aided and abetted by spineless and politically correct school officials who value their jobs and salaries above all else and who will refuse to stand up for the individual rights of their own employees and those who simply wish to make the country a better place.
There is a test that school administrators, judges and lawyers can apply to situations such as this is: Is it free expression of the individual, non coercive and respectful of the rights of others?

We don’t need ACLU agitators or out-of-touch judges to interfere with this important right of all Americans…just get out of the way.

The Wild Weasel