In 1789 the first assembly was held in Christian prayers. The Congress continued to be held the following year in Christian prayers. And it begins with today's prayer. Nevertheless, somehow, in some way, someone at one point got the idea that it is unconstitutional for a public school football coach to do what Congress does. But the Supreme Court ultimately placed the concept in bed in 2022, which raises questions.
Are we beginning to restore proper understanding of the place of religion in the American Republic?
This past Friday commentator Thomas Connors wrote:
The Americans have established a constitution to ensure the blessing of freedom, and have banned Congress from enacting laws that would establish religion or prohibit free movements. Unfortunately, our courts have distorted the meaning of these provisions in order to effectively establish secular or materialistic ideology as our national belief system.
The Supreme Court held in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) that under the establishment clause, government actions have secular purposes and have no major effect of promoting or hampering religion. But American Legionv. In the American Humanist Association (2019), we partially retreated from lemon…
This was also a good reason.
It's lemon
To make the issue even clearer are Nate Kellam and Andrea Justus from the first Liberty Institute. Pointing out that lemons are no longer a valid precedent, they write to American thinkers today:
A court decision written by Judge Neil Gorsuch (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 2022) explicitly rejected the lemon test, “However, the obvious “related to lemon “Ambitiou” “It was given a drawback.” And a historical approach to establishment clauses – this court dispatched lemon and its approval test long ago. Instead of lemon and approval tests, the court directed that the establishment clause must be interpreted by “references to historical practices and understanding.” clause.
In Kennedy, the court dealt with the case of a public high school football coach who was disciplined to pray personally on the scene after the game. The court affirmed that the clauses of free exercise and freedom of speech protect such individual religious expression, and that establishment clauses do not mandate the restraint of religious observance in public spaces, and that the establishment clauses has been awarded. The court explicitly in reaching its decision, the lemon test and its associated “approval” test are no longer in good law, but instructs the court to interpret the establishment clause relating to “historical practices and understanding.” I stated.
As Connors noted, for decades, the lemon test has imposed the standard for “schizophrenia” and the actions of individuals representing government agencies have a purely secular purpose, promoting or obstructing religion. They demand that they at the highest level and at the same time imply God in many ways at the highest level, but at the same time do not hinder religion at the entire governmental institution and practice.
For me, it's religious freedom, but not you,
So lemon yard sticks are not american. In addition to being unconstitutional, it established a double standard for classics. The elite (and pseudo-elites) of the government's Upper Echelon were able to open official businesses with prayer. (And boy, even if they're atheists, they may certainly be clinging to their traditions!) But the “low” football coach, or other “normal” guy, is his efforts You cannot enjoy the same rights within the scope of this.
Perhaps part of the problem is that antitheological cultural delegates know that government elite prayers are normally carried out. But “low” could actually be submitting to him the best. And what is necessary to suppress faith is to trample on the rights of those who actually believe.
Anyway, that's what it existed. Antitheological judges and plaintiffs are forbidden to beat the helpless and practice their religion in full. On the other hand, these ne'er-do-wells will not dare to touch on the Parliamentary prayers. The royalty will make it do what it wants.
The true meaning of the First Amendment
This has created the aforementioned “schizophrenia” paradigm. As Connors wrote earlier:
Nowadays, when governments act, their objectives must be purely secular. Such an objective must be formed without mentioning God. Yet we regularly suggest to God in the context of government, in our currency, “we trust” whether it is a pledge to a nation under God.
And how did you get to this point? Baerv. In Kolmorgen (1958), Judge Elbert T. Gallagher of Westchester County Supreme Court filed a complaint. The phrase “separation between the church and the state” has “few attention so much that we sometimes think that we should be seen somewhere in our constitution.”
Of course, that's not the case. The first ban on amendments is the “establishment” of the official national church. But do you know where the “separation” phrase is?
The Soviet Constitution in 1936 – also known as the “Stalin Constitution.”
From law to logic
More on the legal/constitutional aspects of religion in government. (Click here for this, click here, here.) However, changing the false antitheological “separation” mentality requires a philosophical discussion. So I'm going here.
Imagine that the religious idea in question has been truly passed down by God, the creator of the universe and the false author of all. So, are we not obliged to inject public sphere into them? Isn't it essential to immerse students in this sacred light? Of course, Naysayers now stated, “Not everyone worships Sky Fairy! These are merely artificial beliefs.”
It's okay, but if so, why do you say that the artificial beliefs we happen to call “secular” might be in public squares? If they are all artificial, is there a difference?
Conclusion: These beliefs are artificial, in which case you can share the table with other artificial ideas. They may then be in the public square.
Or they must come from God and be there.
Make your choice. However, it is not an option to credibly argue that religious ideas should not occupy public places simply because they are “religious.”
