Writer Marty Anlsey’s recently rebutted a letter for his gun position. His opinions are his and no number of statistics either way will change them. Albeit his final sentence is clearly wrong — praying in school is not a violation of the Constitution.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case from Bremerton, Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District, proves him wrong. SCOTUS ruled the school district violated Coach Kennedy’s First Amendment rights. The school district fired Mr. Kennedy and insidiously used the 14th Amendment as their basis to shield themselves from litigation for condoning prayer on school property and subjectively coercing students to participate in prayer.
Mr. Kennedy sued on a First Amendment violation. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled against him, and he appealed the case to SCOTUS. Justice Sotomayer wrote the dissenting SCOTUS opinion. “This decision does a disservice to schools and the young citizens they serve, as well as to our nation’s longstanding commitment to the separation of church and state.”
Disservice and commitment are not a reference to Constitutionality. Had they been in the Constitution, she would have embraced them and clearly stated so in her opinion.
Opponents of prayer in school often cite the quote from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Church. “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
Opponents only mention the “wall of separation of church and state.” The wall is a reference explicitly precluding a government established, endorsed and mandatory religion such as the Church of England under King Henry. Under the U.S. Constitution, one is allowed to pray and worship anywhere under the religion of one’s choice with no interference from government.
Drafted almost 250 years ago by many lawyers, the Constitution was intentionally written to be read and understood by any layperson of the period because formal education was not common. It was not meant to be twisted and perverted out of the original context in which it was written as is often done today.
Contrary to Mr. Ansley’s experience, I grew up and attended school in Missouri in the 1950s and 60s and both prayer and corporal punishment were and still are allowed. Distinct differences exist between allowed and forced.
Ray Anderson
Ethel
