ADDENDUM
for Prayer Bill

In society man is defined by whom he knows or is related to, what he does for a living or is studying in school, and what he believes. In other words, man can be defined by his life, liberty and property. In order to maintain his identity man’s rights to life, liberty, and property must be maintained. This thesis is not only the basis for Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, but also the very foundation of the Constitution for the United States of America. This Constitution has made the United States the greatest and freest nation on the face of the earth.

In theory this thesis is generally accepted, however, in our day these rights are being eroded by the Supreme Court. Jefferson chose the phrase the pursuit of happiness, rather than the word property, assuming that man’s right to his property is a given. In this new phraseology we have the reason which most major philosophers give to maintain our life, liberty, and property.

One of the most fundamental and essential elements of the pursuit of happiness is the freedom to pursue the religion of one’s own choosing in the manner of one’s own choosing. Most pre-American wars were fought over this very issue and it has continued to be a hot point of contention since the founding of America.

There have been suggestions that America was founded for the pursuit of economic freedom. However, in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, religious oppression is shown to be the motivation behind the arrival of many if not most of the original colonists. Certainly the Quakers, Presbyterians, English and Irish Catholics, German Lutherans, and the Calvinists came here to avoid religious persecution. For this reason primarily, the First Amendment states that:

"Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,. . . . "

Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia stated in January 2003:

"Courts have gone too far to keep religion out of public schools and other forums. . . . The Constitution has been misinterpreted by both the Supreme Court and the lower courts. . . . Although the Constitution says the government cannot ‘establish’ or promote religion, the framers did not intend for God to be stripped from public life."

The religious persecution by the United States Supreme Court has been manifested in many instances and upon all religious persuasions except atheists, who seem to be the primary beneficiaries of said persecution. Thus the argument could be put forth that atheism is being promoted at the expense of all other religions in the United States. There are many cases which could be used to further this argument. We will only present a few.

In Davis v. Beason the Court put forth its definition of religion: "The term ‘religion’ has reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. . . with man’s relation to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on these subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people are not interfered with."

On the face of it this definition makes sense, as long as the Court stands by the Constitution’s original intent, which is to maintain the life, liberty, and property of the citizens of the United States. The problem is that in many instances secular laws are allowed to take precedence over the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. This could easily be the intent of the aforesaid definition. This can also be seen in the next case.

In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) the Court decided that there is a distinction between action and belief stating, "Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society." This led to several cases which have continued to undermine the free exercise of religion and culminated with the outlawing of prayer in public buildings.

In Minersville School District v. Gobitis the Court decided that the state could force the Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the flag and repeat the pledge of allegiance. This ruling led to mob persecution of adherents of said religion including several instances of castration. If this law had remained in force we would be forced to salute the flag and forced to abstain from prayer in public buildings replacing devotion to God with devotion to America. This lets our Nation, which is only a tiny part of God’s Earth, take precedence over God.

In City of Boerne v. Flores the Court ruled that the Catholic Church could not expand its own building to increase seating capacity because it was considered a landmark. In this case we not only have an example of religious persecution, or a violation of liberty, but a violation of not just an individual’s, but a religion’s right to property.

In Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988) the Court allowed the U.S. Forest Service to build roads on Native American sites used for religious rituals.

In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) the Court outright promoted atheism over religion by deciding that schools must teach evolution, but could not teach creationism, there being cogent evidence for both theories.

In School District of Abbington Township v. Schempp the Court ruled against reciting the Lord’s prayer and reading from the Bible in public schools.

In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) the Court ruled against having a moment of silence in public schools.

Justice Stewart in his dissent in Engel v. Vitale (1962) stated, "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." This was in response to the Court’s outlawing of school prayer.

Chief Justice White, Justice Thomas, and Justice Scalia joined in a dissenting opinion on Lee v. Weissman. This helps us to understand what is at stake when religion begins to be undermined by the Courts.

"In holding that the Establishment Clause prohibits invocations and benedictions at public school graduation ceremonies, the Court – with nary a mention that it is doing so – lays waste to a tradition that is as old as graduation ceremonies themselves, and that it is a component of an even more long-standing American tradition of non-sectarian prayer to God at public ceremonies generally. As its instrument of destruction, the bulldozer of its social engineering, the Court invents a boundless, and boundlessly manipulable, test of psychological coercion. . . . Today’s opinion shows more forcefully than volumes of argumentation why our Nation’s protection, that fortress which is our Constitution, cannot possibly rest upon the changeable philosophical predilections of the Justices of this court, but must have deep foundations in the historic practices of our people. . . .

The history and tradition of our Nation are replete with public prayers of thanksgiving and petition. . . . Most recently, President Bush, continuing the tradition established by President Washington, asked those attending his inauguration to bow their heads, and made a prayer his first official act as President. . . ."