Changes

What the court seems to be arguing is that everything has simply become “too religious” in America and the time has come to push the pendulum back.  However, what is “religious” and why was it of no concern prior to the more recent court rulings?  When Judge Thompson ruled Judge Moore’s Ten Commandment monument in his courthouse was unconstitutional in 2003, he used the word “religion”  149 times in his 76-page opinion, but was still careful to point out that it would be “unwise and even dangerous” to define the word (Glassroth v. Moore).  Is this the problem: do judges simply not know how to define religion and therefore they simply rule to ban it because it is easier?  Has history not taught judges any lessons or provided them with any direction when it comes to all things “religious” in public life?   

What the court seems to be arguing is that everything has simply become “too religious” in America and the time has come to push the pendulum back.  However, what is “religious” and why was it of no concern prior to the more recent court rulings?  When Judge Thompson ruled Judge Moore’s Ten Commandment monument in his courthouse was unconstitutional in 2003, he used the word “religion”  149 times in his 76-page opinion, but was still careful to point out that it would be “unwise and even dangerous” to define the word (Glassroth v. Moore).  Is this the problem: do judges simply not know how to define religion and therefore they simply rule to ban it because it is easier?  Has history not taught judges any lessons or provided them with any direction when it comes to all things “religious” in public life?   

Consider President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in 1863, where he expounded on the America he loved and so desperately wanted to save:  “…a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”  Recognize a familiar phrase?  It was Lincoln that first popularized a “nation under God,” and yet after nearly 150 years, judges are still arguing its relevancy and legality.  Judicial supremacists seem to ignore not only Presidential “precedent,” but also countless examples of religion in public life:   

Consider [[Abraham Lincoln|President Abraham Lincoln’s]] [[Gettysburg Address]] in 1863, where he expounded on the America he loved and so desperately wanted to save:  “…a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”  Recognize a familiar phrase?  It was Lincoln that first popularized a “nation under God,” and yet after nearly 150 years, judges are still arguing its relevancy and legality.  Judicial supremacists seem to ignore not only Presidential “precedent,” but also countless examples of religion in public life:   

our nation’s founding document, The Declaration of Independence, which references God as our creator, our state constitutions that specifically acknowledge God, the fact that Congress always opens with a prayer, and our national motto of “In God We Trust.”   

our nation’s founding document, The Declaration of Independence, which references God as our creator, our state constitutions that specifically acknowledge God, the fact that Congress always opens with a prayer, and our national motto of “In God We Trust.”   

Perhaps, it is not a lack of historical support for a religious America, but simply the mindset of the judicial activists.  Consider Justice Potter Stewart’s dissent in 1962, when the Court first crossed into the murky waters of religious freedom in Engle v. Vitale:  “The Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle.  I cannot see how an ‘official religion’ is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it.  On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our nation.”   

Perhaps, it is not a lack of historical support for a religious America, but simply the mindset of the judicial activists.  Consider Justice Potter Stewart’s dissent in 1962, when the Court first crossed into the murky waters of religious freedom in Engle v. Vitale:  “The Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle.  I cannot see how an ‘official religion’ is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it.  On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our nation.”   

Clearly, not all of our judges take our constitution for granted and they recognize the importance of religious freedom, not freedom from religion.  What citizens must recognize is the constitution’s purpose to be objective or neutral towards religion and not to be irreligious.  Judges must also understand this important principle and strive to harmonize religion in public life rather than trying to hide it for fear of offending someone.  As every constitutional scholar will note, we do not have a right not to be offended, and as Erwin Griswold, dean of the Harvard Law School, commented, “In a country which has a great tradition of tolerance, is it not important that minorities, who have benefited so greatly from that tolerance, should be tolerant, too?”

Clearly, not all of our judges take our constitution for granted and they recognize the importance of religious freedom, not freedom from religion.  What citizens must recognize is the constitution’s purpose to be objective or neutral towards religion and not to be irreligious.  Judges must also understand this important principle and strive to harmonize religion in public life rather than trying to hide it for fear of offending someone.  As every constitutional scholar will note, we do not have a right not to be offended, and as Erwin Griswold, dean of the [[Harvard]] Law School, commented, “In a country which has a great tradition of tolerance, is it not important that minorities, who have benefited so greatly from that tolerance, should be tolerant, too?”

[[category:homeschool curriculum]]

[[category:homeschool curriculum]]