Changes

But in the middle of the 20th century some on the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to limit the influence of Christianity, first applied the Establishment Clause against the States in a decision that upheld what the State was doing.  In that decision, the Court agreed with the State but established a precedent for ruling against States in the future under the Establishment Clause.  Beware of expansions of federal power like that.  It is like a stranger saying, “Open your front door, but don’t worry because I am not coming inside.”

But in the middle of the 20th century some on the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to limit the influence of Christianity, first applied the Establishment Clause against the States in a decision that upheld what the State was doing.  In that decision, the Court agreed with the State but established a precedent for ruling against States in the future under the Establishment Clause.  Beware of expansions of federal power like that.  It is like a stranger saying, “Open your front door, but don’t worry because I am not coming inside.”

The Supreme Court announced it would apply the Clause against the States, but then appeared reasonable in deferring to the states.  The Supreme Court thereby opened the door but stood outside to make it look friendly.  Only later did it enter and beginning demanding that states end prayer and take down the Ten Commandments.

The Supreme Court announced it would apply the Clause against the States, but then appeared reasonable in deferring to the states.  The Supreme Court thereby opened the door but stood outside to make it look friendly.  Only later did it enter and beginning demanding that states end prayer and take down the Ten Commandments.  Sound familiar?  The Supreme Court took the same approach in ''Marbury v. Madison'' - let one side win, but based on a reason that it cause it to lose in the future.

55 years ago, students in public high school in [[New Jersey]] recited the “Our Father” ever morning.  States were then free to do this, and schools were much better because of it.  But in 1962, in ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'', the Supreme Court applied the Establishment Clause to abolish school prayer.   

55 years ago, students in public high school in [[New Jersey]] recited the “Our Father” ever morning.  States were then free to do this, and schools were much better because of it.  But in 1962, in ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'', the Supreme Court applied the Establishment Clause to abolish school prayer.   

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens.”  So wrote President George Washington in his historic Farewell Address, published five years after the passage of the Bill of Rights.  Philadelphia Daily American Advertiser, Sept. 19, 1796.

President George Washington would not have been pleased by this.  In his Farewell Address, written by Alexander Hamilton, Washington said:<ref>Philadelphia Daily American Advertiser, Sept. 19, 1796.</ref>

President John Adams echoed the same conviction: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” 9 The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States 229 (Charles Francis Adams, ed. 1854).

 

 

President John Adams echoed the same principle:<ref>9 The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States 229 (Charles Francis Adams, ed. 1854).</ref> “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Nothing in the First Amendment requires censorship of the Ten Commandments, which neither establishes a religion nor coerces anyone to believe.  Those who oppose the moral message may feign offense, but appeasing the hypersensitive is not a goal of the First Amendment.  Its prohibition on an establishment of religion does not require purging recognition of religion from everything public.  Federal law expressly references God numerous times, as do our coins and officials’ oaths of office.  The United States Supreme Court itself features Moses holding the sacred tablets.

Nothing in the First Amendment requires censorship of the Ten Commandments, which neither establishes a religion nor coerces anyone to believe.  Those who oppose the moral message may feign offense, but appeasing the hypersensitive is not a goal of the First Amendment.  Its prohibition on an establishment of religion does not require purging recognition of religion from everything public.  Federal law expressly references God numerous times, as do our coins and officials’ oaths of office.  The United States Supreme Court itself features Moses holding the sacred tablets.