Changes

So the Supreme Court first announced it would apply the Establishment Clause against the States, but initially 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 base it on a reason that enables the Court to expand its power for future cases.

So the Supreme Court first announced it would apply the Establishment Clause against the States, but initially 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 base it on a reason that enables the Court to expand its power for future cases.

55 years ago, students in public high schools in [[New Jersey]] recited the “Our Father” every morning.  States were 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 classroom prayer in public schools.  Fortunately, that Court cannot ban prayer by homeschoolers.

55 years ago, students in public high schools in [[New Jersey]] recited the “Our Father” every morning.  States were 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 classroom prayer in public schools.  Fortunately, courts cannot ban prayer by homeschoolers.

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 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>

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.

The bottom line is this:  the Establishment Clause as originally written does not prohibit classroom prayer and other religious activity on government property, but the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit classroom prayer in public school and other religious activity on government property now.

The bottom line is this:  the Establishment Clause as originally written does not prohibit classroom prayer and other religious activity on government property, but the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit classroom prayer in public school and other religious activity on government property.

'''NOTE''': do not confuse the Establishment Clause with the Free Exercise Clause, which follows the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....”

'''NOTE''': do not confuse the Establishment Clause with the Free Exercise Clause, which follows the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....”

You may agree with some or all of the expansions of free speech rights above.  In general, conservatives and liberals tend to support expanding free speech rights, and for that reason free speech has greatly expanded.  Can you think of an example of someone famous who opposed free speech?  (Answer: President John Adams when he signed the Sedition Act to prohibit criticism of him; also Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes when he wrote the decision in ''Schenck v. United States'' (1919), which affirmed the conviction of someone for criticizing the compulsory military draft in World War I.)

You may agree with some or all of the expansions of free speech rights above.  In general, conservatives and liberals tend to support expanding free speech rights, and for that reason free speech has greatly expanded.  Can you think of an example of someone famous who opposed free speech?  (Answer: President John Adams when he signed the Sedition Act to prohibit criticism of him; also Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes when he wrote the decision in ''Schenck v. United States'' (1919), which affirmed the conviction of someone for criticizing the compulsory military draft in World War I.)

Public schools do not allow full free speech (should they?).  On one hand, it is easy to see why we would not allow students to be able to say whatever they like.  Should students have a right of free speech to lie?  Should students have a right to be rude to the teachers, or post criticisms of their own teachers on the internet?  There are court cases where students have been punished by schools after ridiculing their teachers, and the students then sue the school based on the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment.  What is your view about which side should win on that issue?  

Public schools do not allow full free speech (should they?).  On one hand, it is easy to see why we would not allow students to be able to say whatever they like.  Should students have a right of free speech to lie?  Should students have a right to be rude to the teachers, or post criticisms of their own teachers on the internet?  There are court cases where students have been punished by schools after ridiculing their teachers on the internet, and the students then sued the school based on the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment.  What is your view about which side should win on that issue?  

There is not free speech in the military, either.  If you insult your commander, then he is going to punish you for insubordination.  About twenty years before Japan sunk most of our ships at Pearl Harbor, General Billy Mitchell spoke out against how our top military commanders were leaving our navy unprotected against that sort of attack.  Later events proved him to be completely right, but at the time he was court martialed for insubordination and was both humiliated and forced to resign.  (After the Pearl Harbor attack and after Billy Mitchell died, our military admitted its mistake and reinstated his benefits).  Should there be free speech in the military?

There is not free speech in the military, either.  If you insult your commander, then he is going to punish you for insubordination.  About twenty years before Japan sunk most of our ships at Pearl Harbor, General Billy Mitchell spoke out against how our top military commanders were leaving our navy unprotected against that sort of attack.  Later events proved him to be completely right, but at the time he was court martialed for insubordination and was both humiliated and forced to resign.  (After the Pearl Harbor attack and after Billy Mitchell died, our military admitted its mistake and reinstated his benefits).  Should there be free speech in the military?