It is such a shame that Ron Paul, the only Republican candidate who has made any sense whatsoever on foreign policy and the Iraq war at the Republican debates, is otherwise a far right kook. I first noted Paul’s extremism (and not the good kind, in defense of liberty) with regards to his acceptance of right wing revisionist history which denies the fundamental role of separation or church and state in the founding of this nation. As I wrote in July:
While I sympathize with Paul’s opposition to the war and some of his other positions, his absurd claim that “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers” prevents me from considering him as a candidate, or believing his rhetoric of being a strict defender of the Constitution. Paul has supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, has co-sponsored the school prayer amendment, and supported keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn.
That was enough to eliminate any consideration of backing Paul, but so far this doesn’t make him worse than the bulk of the current Republican Party. There have also been the embarrassing moments with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but Paul escaped serious damage here when he distanced himself from their beliefs. In general a candidate cannot be expected to turn down the votes of those who hold some beliefs they disagree with.
There are notable exceptions to this. This morning Jesus’ General noted that Ron Paul has received the endorsement of the white supremacist group. Stormfront. There has been significant support for Paul in their discussion forum for some time.
This is one group whose support Paul should repudiate if he hopes to be considered a serious candidate, even among Republicans. Instead it appears Paul is encouraging such support. Steve Benen reported on other signs of Paul’s extremism as seen in this handwritten letter (pdf). Hatewatch reports on plans for Paul to speak before a racist group. Orcinus has further reviewed “Paul’s extended history of dalliances with right-wing xenophobes, racists, and conspiracy theorists.”
before I discuss this further, what’s your stance on the second amendment? I suspect very strongly you don’t believe in it.
I “believe in” the second amendment, but not that the UN is seeking to create a world government or to take away anyone’s guns.
What about these sources?
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa071201a.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33584
http://www.crosswalk.com/1403489/
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0601unguncontrol.htm
http://www.getusout.org/artman/publish/cat_index_23.shtml
Some quotes from the last link:
“We strongly endorse community initiatives … to encourage the disarming of civilians….”
– Our Global Neighborhood,
published in 1995 by the UN-funded
Commission on Global Governance
“So quietly that even the gun lobby hasn’t noticed, the United Nations is beginning to set its sights on global gun control.”
– Associated Press, May 24, 1994
“Some progress is already being made as States [nations] tighten their arms export legislation and collect and destroy surplus weapons.”
– UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his 2000 report to the General Assembly
“States [nations] emerging from conflicts should, as soon as practicable, impose or reimpose licensing requirements on all civilian possession of small arms and light weapons….”
– 1997 UN “Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms” report
There’s more, but I think that’s a pretty strong case to show that UN are indeed “seeking to take away … guns”
Your sources do not prove anything other than the hysteria of the right wing and their ability to take things out of context to support their fantasies. For example, your first reference states:
I’ve heard these same paranoid cliams 30-40 years ago, and I know they were being spread even well before that. A candidate who promotes these views is simply not credible.
You also use a lot of sources which are not very credible, such as Worldnet Daily. The last source which you quote form extensively is from a site entitled Get US Out of the UN.
What is licensing efforts but not gun control? Gun control has always come in these many guises.
Where is your vigilance?
Hm, I should have mention. This all boils down to what seems to be an unfaltering faith in government on your part. I do not share the same faith.
“This all boils down to what seems to be an unfaltering faith in government on your part.”
I certainly have no unfaltering faith in government. This has nothing to do faith in government. However in being critical of government we must evaluate sources as opposed to repeating unsubstantiated claims which have been going around for decades from right wing nut groups. The UN is not licensing or otherwise controlling our guns.
How is it an unsubstantiated claim with efforts like these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANSA ?
Do any of the other so-called “free countries” that are members of the UN let their citizens be armed with the exception of Switzerland?
Are you also denying the quotes here:
“We strongly endorse community initiatives … to encourage the disarming of civilians….” ?
btw, as far as I know, there are a lot of left-wing groups who are just as worried about gun control as those of the right so I don’t know why you’re pointing fingers and using derogatory terms.
You can of course argue that the claims are unsubstantiated because it hasn’t happened yet, but the fact is, there’s a strong push towards civilian disarmament. Even here in the US, without the aid of the UN.
Again, you are taking things out of context with your own references contradicting your claims.
What claim am I contradicting? I’ve said all along that UN is trying to disarm us. If I have given any other indication, please let me know.
See the quote above from your own source that the goal is “not to take guns away from American citizens.”
Huh? The SPLC is itself a hate group. Take anything they say with a large block of salt.
The SPLC “hates” bigotry and racism. Maybe from that perspective the SPLC is a “hate group.”
It’s amazing how a discussion of Ron Paul brings up such a wide variety of off the wall views.
“See the quote above from your own source that the goal is “not to take guns away from American citizens.””
which of the sources? you said the first refrence, but I don’t see that quote there. I searched all of the references I gave, but not from a single one can I find the block quote you’re referring to. Can you point me to my reference you found it in? I must be missing it somehow.
It is right in the first link you gave.
I’m loving this discussion between the two of you. This is why Ron Paul is so cool. His original campaign slogan was “Change the Debate”. He has done just that. The 2 of you are debating in such an honest civil manner. It is amazing. Not one curse word or deragatory accusation has appeared. It just shows people can disagree and debate topics properly. Ron Paul has brought intelligent debate back to the election process. If he does nothing else, at least his run for the presidency did this. More than I can say for anyone else running.
That is true. Without Ron Paul in the race we would be hearing virtually identical things from all the Republicans, and then we’d have the expected disputes between the Democrats and Republicans in the general election. Paul does demonstrate how divorced from reality the Republicans are such as when he explained the connection between US intervention in the middle east and terrorist attacks and the other Republicans went ballistic when they couldn’t handle reality.
In my opinion, Ron Paul represents the what Republicans are supposed to be.
In fact, he seems to be the only candidate on either side that is offering a concrete way to continue social programs enacted by Democrats over the last 75 years, without going even further into debt.
“It is right in the first link you gave.”
typical, one of the words I had search for was 10-day which was on a line-wrap. Anyway, it seems to me the intent of the UN is global gun control, but they claim here that they aim to “reduce” the flow of guns. Sounds very wishy washy to me, but I concede that it’s unsubstantiated.
If you look up the recent interviews with Vicente Fox you will find some info in regard to the Security and Prosperity partnership (SPP).
I think the big question has there been very little work done in regard to our southern borders?
There is a credible threat to our National Sovereignty. Whether or not you want to engage in these discussions, I fully respect your right to free speech or lack thereof.
What I do assert, is that there is very little chance that people who have looked into Ron Paul’s positions can come to the conclusion that he does not vigorously support the ideals that this country was founded upon.
In regard to the original separation of church and state, empirically speaking, the reason for this separation was to prevent what happened in regard to Henry VIII and the creation of the National Religion in England. Call it what you will, and after checking into the sources in regard to “Jesus General”, I too find that what was listed bears merit in repeating. However, this, in my opinon, does not detract form the notion that our country was founded upon Judeo-Christian ideals.
The separation of church and state was intended to keep goverment out of the local practices whether they be in schools, churches or politics. They were not intended to keep local people from injecting their feelings into local jurisdiction, but rather to keep the federal government from making blanket decisions in regard to the matter.
In regard to the “endorsement”, I would again like to state, that while certain groups may endorse Ron Paul, that in no way means that he endorses the thoughts behind their group.
Let us be intelligent and balanced here (which is very difficult considering that the modus operandi of each party seems to be to keep us polarized. Join together in the message of Limited Government and Liberty. It is the barriers that are perceived to be left and right that separate us. Ron Paul’s message harkens us back to our roots and it is within the US Constitution that we will find the answers for the problems that face our country today.
Let the Liberal remember that it is not they that should tell the people which crumbs off of the table of life that we should want, and let the conservative remember that if they forget what it is like to be a communitarian, that business interests will step in to remove the ethical boundaries in pursuit of free trade.
This message s for both sides of the aisle, and if We, the American People can come together, then the concept that Liberty and Freedom are the Bedrock of this great Republic shall not fall upon deaf ears.
There is reason that in Federalist Paper #10, that factions were regarded with suspicion and a wary eye. This is the very reason that “Checks and Balances” were introduced. The message of Freedom is not a perfect one. It takes a great deal of work to inform one’s self upon the merits of each issue that face us as a people.
If we forget the lessons, or conveniently leave them out of the discussion, then emotions and irrational thoughts have great room to maneuver into our thinking parameters.
Thank you for your time, and I earnestly hope that We as a People can make an intelligent decision in regard to those that would choose to represent us.
“Ron Paul’s message harkens us back to our roots and it is within the US Constitution that we will find the answers for the problems that face our country today.”
Unfortunately Paul is selective in his interpretation of the Constitution. His social conservativism and failure to respect separation of church and state would open the door for the religious right to further impose their views on society. The election of Ron Paul would result in a reduction in liberty in this country despite his rhetoric.
Separation of Church and State!? It has been the involvement of federal courts, etc that has helped impose the wills on the minority upon the majority.
I do note that the question of factions was not addressed in this reply, and I would humbly ask that you consider the motivating factors of the factions that seek to impose their will upon us.
If the motivating factor is grounded in the US Constitution, then then the arguments should have merit unless proven otherwise.
I, for one, would like to have a choice from the greater of two goods, rather than the lesser of two evils that seems to prevail in politics today.
I do take note that you didn’t refer to my assertion that the separation of church and state was a response to what happened in England in regard to the creation of a national religion. You chose instead to respond with a blanket statement that Ron Paul was selective in his interpretation of the Constitution, blended in with a but of fear mongering about the religious right gaining power and imposing their views upon society.
And concerning “Ron Paul’s rhetoric” as you stated, it is the thoughts that made our country.
Please check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLymM3TxT90 (the other 3 parts are located within the posters uploads.
Are you for an imperialistic agenda that seeks to force parts of the world into our way of thinking down the barrel of a gun? Would you have the federal government tell people how they should live their lives if they do no harm to others?
Do you think that our country can keep funding domestic entitlement programs unless its shifts its paradigm of thought?
Hillary Clinton, and if you want a good view on her modus operandi, please check out http://www.peterfpaul.com or the link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019
I for one am tired of what seems to be an elitest stranglehold upon the Executive Branch.
Wake up people! Unite and thoughtfully approach the critical years ahead that face us as a country.
I assert that both parties have dropped the ball, and it i only with vigilance and a thoughtful mind that we have a chance to reclaim the Dream that is America.
“You chose instead to respond with a blanket statement that Ron Paul was selective in his interpretation of the Constitution,”
If you would prefer a specific example of where Paul is selective in his interpretation of the Constitution, there is his vote on the so-called “partial birth abortion” ban.
At present, the religious right presents the greatest threat to our liberties, and a candidate who would allow their agenda presents a grave risk of bringing about less freedom even if he falsely uses “the thoughts that made our country.” The acceptance of the same revisionist history claims as those spread by the far right with regards to separation of church and state by Paul and many of his followers is also quite alarming.
As an OBGYN, Dr. Ron Paul could be sued, or face jail time, if he led to a destruction of a human life within the womb. On the flip side, if a mother presently choose to end the life of her child before delivery, she is by federal law allowed to do so. If this same mother chooses to end this life after exiting the womb, she can be charged with murder.
I would remind the religious right that there own bible says, “Let the righteous be righteous, let the holy be holy, let the wicked be wicked, etc….”
The greatest threat to our liberties lies within a federal government that feels compelled to live the lives of citizens within the country. Both sides of the fence are guilty of this.
Knowledge is power…The reader needs to become informed of the issues and cross-reference the sources of that information.
I still am waiting upon the refutation of this blog’s author that the concept of the separation of church and state were in reference to the nationalization of a state religion by the government. I think, Ron, that you may feel you have addressed this, however, in my opinion, you have done nothing except try to play the fear-monger role, that somehow the religious right presents the “greatest threat” to our liberties.
I would then re-assert that the greatest threat lies with those that would choose the federal government create blanket national policies in areas that they were NEVER supposed to have jurisdiction in.
Chris,
Your spin doesn’t cut it. The government has no role in deciding issues such as abortion. Most of the time Paul justifies his opposition to abortion rights by saying it should be a state issue. Here he clearly showed that this is just a dodge as he voted for a federal ban on so-called “partial birth” abortions.
There are multiple posts here dealing with the true history of separation of church and state and some of this is linked in the post. I’m not going to repeat this every time a right winger comments here promoting the same revisionist history denying our heritage of separation of church and state.
“you have done nothing except try to play the fear-monger role,”
If you are going to keep commenting here you can drop the insults. I have laid out the dangers of the religious right in many posts here. A much stronger case could be made that it is you who are engaging in fear mongering as you falsely portray the choice as either Paul or loss of liberty.
I am not a right winger. I was raised to be a citizen watch dog. The question of abortion is indeed something that should be dealt with on the state level. What I am speaking of is that the candidates that represent us should have a stand based in The Constitution.
As far as issues go, I have to consciously deal with each one to determine what my feelings are. I find it ironic that considering my last post, I called the right wing out on trying to dictate what other people choose to do, yet you didn’t address this.
I am not trying to insult you. I am trying to compel the reader to think about these issues.
“The question of abortion is indeed something that should be dealt with on the state level.”
This gets to two problems I have with Ron Paul
First of all, liberties should not be decided at the state level. At more local levels of politics we see an increased tendency for smaller groups to be able to impose their views on government and restrict liberties.
Secondly, as I noted above, Paul is selective as to how he interprets the Constitution while hiding behind false claims of being a strict constructionist. If he consistently believed abortion should be handled at the state level he could not justify voting for a federal ban on so-called partial birth abortions. Also in this case the 14th amendment places the Constitution on my side in the first issue with regards to matters of protecting liberties being a national and not state issue.
“I am not trying to insult you. I am trying to compel the reader to think about these issues.”
But you are insulting when you make claims of fear mongering, as well as this insinuation that others who disagree with you have not thought about these issues. Many of us have thought about these issues, and find that the consequence of Paul’s views would be to reduce our liberties.
Who else on the Republican side would you support?
Who on the Democratic side do you support?
That’s avoiding the issues. The topic here is the problems with Ron Paul. I’ve discussed problems with other candidates here. Attacking problems with other candidates does not alter these problems with Ron Paul.
Just wanted to ask. Not avoiding issues, but wanted to get inside your mind, as you can probably surmise who I support for president.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/83/the-partial-birth-abortion-ban/
This details Ron Paul’s position in regard to partial birth abortion. If you would be so kind to read it, that would be great. You will see the reservation that Ron Paul had in voting for this.
I was aware that Paul had reservations. The fact remains that he voted for it, reinforcing my fears that he is more of a social conservative than a true libertarian.
For now I’m evaluating all the candidates and writing about their strengths and weaknesses. There’s still a long time until I have to vote. There’s the extra complication that here in Michigan most of the Democrats are off the ballot. If that holds I might vote for Dodd as an anti-Clinton protest or I might go as a Republican and vote for Paul as a protest against the war. In either case it would be more of a protest vote as it is doubtful that either Dodd or Paul can win their party’s nomination. This could also change tremendously as there is now talk of revising the law to place all the candidates on the ballot regardless of their requests to be removed.
Well, in Florida we are effectively 3/4’s dis-enfranchised for the upcoming primary. Presently, there are no delegates that will be chosen on the Democratic side, and the Republican party has taken half of the delegates away. After it was announced what was happening to Florida, Michigan went ahead with its plan to move up as well.
Here are my thoughts upon the subject.
The fetus inside the womb is a living being. It would be hard to scientifically convince me otherwise. With that said, if the fetus is actually in reality a baby, it is entitled to life and liberty too. Though there certainly exist circumstances that need to be reviewed in relation to this extremely sensitive subject. After all, the mother’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is at stake as well.
I am not trying to tell someone how they should think. These are my views. What I would point out though, that Dr. Ron Paul’s position in regard to this actually keeps in line with that Constitutional thought in regard to the child. After all, the first stated power of Congress:
Section 8 – Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
and:
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.
Working towards the preamble,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
posterity n. 1. Future generations. 2. All of a person’s descendents.
I cut and pasted this from
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
So within the Preamble, the word “Posterity” appears. Within the first stated Power of Congress, one can find “Promoting the General Welfare.”
Riding this train of thought, humbly, I hope it gives the reader some good gray matter stimulation.
It is probably futile to debate the abortion issue. I’m sure both of us have heard all the arguments on both sides and there’s nothing we can say here that will change the other’s mind. Regarding the science, of course the fetus is a living being. However there is a considerable difference between a fetus and a living baby, plus we have the issue of the mother’s rights to control her own body as you also noted.
We are in comparable situations in Michigan and Florida. I still suspect that they will come up with some solution.
There is certainly language in the Constitution which is vague enough to give the federal government the authority to act in a wide variety of matters. However, for the most part Paul campaigns against this type of thought, but then contradicts his usual views on the Constitution regarding abortion laws at the federal level. The same argument you give can be used to justify all matters of government social welfare programs which Paul opposes.
Everyone else is doing a great job of attacking your ridiculous claims, but I’ll throw in a little addendum. The so-called “School Prayer” amendment gives individuals the RIGHT and FREEDOM to pray if they want to, and disallows any official or forced religion in public schools. How that can possible be construed as a “school prayer” amendment is astonishing.
At least admit the reason why you dislike Ron Paul so much– he’s not a socialist and he wants freedom. With a smaller government, people that write articles about the government, like you, will have much less work. Suddenly “liberal values” in the Statist sense you’re describing will cease to be important, because true, classical liberalism will be achieved.
Ellis,
Your claims are incorrect. This is a common misrepresentation spread by the right. The school prayer amendment is not about giving individuals the freedom to pray. They already have that right. Even Mike Huckabee, probably the strongest advocate of the views of the religious right in the race, as criticized the idea of the government getting involved in having religion in schools.
I oppose socialism and I oppose actions which limit the freedom of the individual. Unfortunately, despite his rhetoric, Paul supports the agenda of the religious right which would decrease liberty.
Resorting to name calling, such as claiming that those who disagree with you support socialism or bigger government only acts to further discredit you.
Ron, Ellis,
I think you both may be incorrect:
Ron Paul sponsored a RESOLUTION for the School Prayer Amendment:
H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.
H. J. RES. 78 (1997):
To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.
Daniel,
You have it wrong with regards to the intent and result of this amendment. People currently have the right to organize private prayer sessions, even in schools, but advocates of the amendment try to claim otherwise. The purpose of the amendment is to get around the Supreme Court decisions which prevent organized prayer in schools. Simply having wording that nobody would be required to participate is insufficient as organized religious activities in the schools place too much pressure on children to participate even if not formally required to do so. This is an area where it is important that government stays out.
Ron,
what do I have wrong? I only quoted text with the regards to the resolutions that Ron Paul has supported. I’ve made no claims whatsoever, so how can I be wrong? Further more, the quotes were in regards to the RESOLUTION that Ron Paul sponsored, not the amendment.
You don’t prove someone wrong with every single argument, you know.
Just looking at the text is misleading. That’s how they try to get such things through. You need to look at the full context of the legal and political debate. You can’t just separate out a resolution from the amendment it supports. Paul is on the wrong side on this one and his position here makes him unacceptable to me as a candidate. This is rather a fundamental point in defending separation of church and state and defending this amendment as Paul did would make any candidate totally unacceptable.
Ironically it is sort of a way for Paul to make his statements against separation of church and state come true. An amendment which would so radically change the nature of our government is unacceptable.
It is also a dangerous precedent to set in amending the Constitution to repeal one of the rights provided in the Bill of Rights.
You of course understand all such legal and political debates? What is your qualification and why should I take you as an authority over someone who has been working with such things for 30 years?
Did you read the resolutions he sponsored? If you did, can you please quote the particular bits which are in dispute so we can have it in the “full context of the legal and political debate” we seem to be having?
I just read H.J. Res 78, and I don’t see anything about it as being misleading. Maybe it’s misleading if you don’t understand English. But then again, some people think the 2nd amendment is a collective right as opposed to an individual, so I’m not overly surprised if you don’t understand the little snippet of text.
I’m going to be VERY clear here. Ron Paul supporter H.J. Res 78 which proposes to add following language to the constitution:
“To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.”
What part of the above quote do you disagree with? And why do you NOT thing it is an appropriate amendment? Why would you not have sponsored this text? Now you have ALL the context, all we’re talking about is adding THAT text to the constitution, and that was something Ron Paul supported in H.J. Res 78. Please also detail what in that little snippet of text you find misleading.
I’m not asking you to take my word on this. I’m saying you need to read up on the issue and not just quote a few lines. As for Paul being someone who has worked on this for 30 years, the examples here and others I cited in the past demonstrate he is not a reliable source.
I’ve already noted the problems with allowing school sponsored prayer as well as proposing one Amendment to remove a fundamental liberty which the founding fathers wisely supported. A candidate who supports repealing a portion of the bill of rights is simply unacceptable.
“Please also detail what in that little snippet of text you find misleading.”
You miss the point. You need to consider the full background, both legally and politically, to understand the consequences of this.
Daniel,
The bottom line here is that a sufficient portion of die hard Paul supporters such as yourself are going to continue to support Paul and either agree with or ignore his off the wall views.
However there are many Paul supporters who are unaware of Paul’s views beyond issues such as opposition to the war. These people (as well as some apparently die hard Paul supporters who are unaware of these views) will be unlikely to support Paul once they understand his actual beliefs.
This post isn’t directed towards couple percent of the country such as yourself and I don’t expect you to agree. However those who do respect the Bill of Rights as envisioned by the founding fathers and understand the vital importance of separation of church and state, as well as preserving the First Amendment, will not find Paul to be a credible candidate.
“The bottom line here …”
The bottom line is that you’re giving them misleading information. Whilst I agree that endorsement from supremacy groups is a good topic for discussion, I think many come to the conclusion that you can’t choose who endorses you. Others may agree with you, however, and think it should be outright repudiated.
I won’t criticize you for bringing awareness to other issues, because I’m sure there are very few who will agree with ALL Ron Paul has to say. But if you’re going to bring up issues, we need to get the facts straight.
However, you’re now you’re avoiding the discussion and the questions at hand regarding the resolutions Ron Paul supported on school prayer i.e. the proposed Religious Freedom Amendment. You say I’m not supposed to just quote a few lines, so I quoted the whole text of what was in discussion to be added to the constitution. I also gave references to the resolution so people can verify that’s indeed the full text of the proposed amendment.
Ron Paul voted in favor to have that text added to the constitution, now I ask you again, what’s wrong with the text as it stands? How is it misleading? Why do you disagree? What in particular about the text would you want changed? Do you think the whole text is bad, if so, please elaborate.
I completely disagree with you. The mere fact that someone is trying to put Constitutional thought in the forefront of their campaign should serve to let you know what they are about.
Freedom isn’t perfect, it takes a lot of work. Both sides of the fence are to blame for the state of affairs in the country.
Along comes someone who would remind us what it means to be Americans, and that freedom and liberty are the bedrock of this great republic, and you try to slam him; because he values life, and because he values the “right to prayer”.
There is a lot of work to do to try and right this ship.
Is anyone perfect? No… Is there a better candidate to help us reclaim the Dream that is America? No…
“The bottom line is that you’re giving them misleading information.”
I’m giving absolutely no misleading information here, although I should point out that what you have said here is quite incorrect. Paul is listed as a cosponsor of the school prayer amendment but you have tried to downplay this by claiming he just supports a resolution.
“What in particular about the text would you want changed? Do you think the whole text is bad, if so, please elaborate.”
The entire idea of revoking a portion of the Bill of Rights is bad and, for the reasons I’ve already noted above, the whole amendment should be dropped. This amendment has no purpose other than to remove a liberty granted in the Bill of Rights. There is no reason to change the text–the entire amendment should be dropped.
You are also providing misleading information when you repeat the right wing spin that this is a Religious Freedom Amendment. The amendment does not give any further freedoms while it revokes a portion of the Bill of Rights and reduces religious freedom.
Anonymous,
This is not about the right to pray. Nobody denies this. This is about preserving the separation of church and state which the founding fathers supported. In this way Paul is opposing “the Dream that is America.”
A lot of work needs to be done to preserve our liberties. This includes shedding light on people like Paul who claim to be for freedom while some of their policies would result in the opposite.
Here’s some other opinions on this matter (carried over several comments):
Defending the Constitution is like driving in a parking lot: danger can come from any quarter. If we stay focused in one direction for too long, we’re likely to be blind-sided from another. Most threats come from the left, as big government advocates do their best to circumvent the fundamental law. Unfortunately, some of the most direct attacks have been coming from supposed conservatives.
The latest example is the so-called “Religious Freedom Amendment.” On March 24, 1997, the Christian Coalition announced that they would go all out to promote its passage by Congress. Here is the text of the amendment.
To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God: The right to pray or acknowledge religious belief, heritage or tradition on public property, including public schools, shall not be infringed. The government shall not compel joining in prayer, initiate or compose school prayers, discriminate against or deny a benefit on account of religion.
As with most such proposals, this one sounds harmless enough. With all of the horror stories about children being harassed for prayer or Bible reading in schools, don’t we need to do something?
Yes, we do need to do something. Under pressure from the ACLU and other gadflies of the left, the federal courts have turned the First Amendment completely around. Instead of protecting the people’s practice of religion from the government, the courts use the First Amendment to hamper the practice of religion.
The proposed amendment approaches the problem as if there were some ambiguity in the Constitution. It seeks to clarify what is already perfectly clear in the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” An established religion is an official state church, such as the Church of England which the Pilgrims and others fled when they came to America. Rather than authorizing government to limit religious activities of citizens in schools or anywhere else, the First Amendment merely forbids Congress’s creation of a state funded and operated church. If this isn’t clear to the Supreme Court justices as it now stands, it is hard to see how the wording of the Religious Freedom Amendment will make it more clear.
As with any amendment which tries to undo some judicial malinterpretation, this one weakens the Constitution by conceding that there was room for misunderstanding in the original document. That gives to the court’s twisted interpretations the blessing of Congress and the ratifying states. While it may fix the immediate symptom, it leaves the root problem — judicial dictatorship — in place to strike again somewhere else.
Another problem with the amendment is that it perpetuates the idea that the federal judiciary has the power to set local educational policies. We need less federal oversight of our local school systems, not more. It is easy to visualize a federal judge ruling that this amendment requires a high school, for example, to allow Shinto or Moslem students to conduct student-initiated prayer services over the school’s PA system.
Finally, the amendment contains what would be the first mention of the concept of federal “benefits” to appear in the Constitution. With the Constitution as it now stands, it is easy to show that the government has not been granted the power to confer “benefits” on anyone. Add this amendment and suddenly the New Deal will have a foot in the Constitutional door.
The Framers of the Constitution gave Congress the means to control misbehaving government officials, including Supreme Court justices. The House of Representatives can impeach, and the Senate can try, any federal official for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Maliciously reinterpreting our fundamental law to suit a political agenda sounds like a crime to me. We should have seen some federal judges thrown out long ago. It’s not too late to start now.
The amendment process was provided to correct deficiencies in the Constitution, not in the particular people who currently hold federal judicial positions. Let’s keep our hands off of the Constitution until we find real problems with it. Meanwhile, we need to remind the Supreme Court justices that they too are subject to the limitations imposed by our Constitution.
http://www.neusysinc.com/columnarchive/colm0066.html
Looking at yet another related issue where Paul is on the wrong side:
Istook School Prayer Amendment Unnecessary, Divisive And Dangerous, Says Americans United
Tuesday, April 8, 2003
First Amendment Does Not Need To Be Rewritten, Group Asserts
U.S. Rep. Ernest J. Istook’s latest attempt to add a school prayer amendment to the Constitution deserves a speedy defeat in Congress, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
“It’s time again to remind the U.S. Congress of a fundamental truth: The First Amendment is not broken and doesn’t need to be fixed,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Istook’s amendment claims to protect the people’s right to pray, but that right is already protected by the First Amendment. ”
Lynn charged that Istook (R-Okla.) is reintroducing the amendment now to capitalize on Religious Right-led hysteria over the recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because of its religious content.
Istook’s “Pledge and Prayer Amendment” would permit public schools to sponsor prayer and religious worship and would allow government to display sectarian symbols and religious codes like the Ten Commandments in government buildings. The House rejected an earlier version of the amendment in 1998.
“This amendment will foster a type of religious mob rule in our public schools,” said Lynn. “Religious majorities will be able to impose their faith on everyone else. That runs counter to the spirit of true religious liberty.”
The amendment (H.J. Res. 46) reads, “To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools. The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity.”
Observed Lynn, “The Bill of Rights was drafted by James Madison and other visionary founders. To Rep. Istook I say loudly and clearly: Congressman, you’re no James Madison. Leave the Constitution alone.”
Continued Lynn, “Istook and his Religious Right allies treat the Bill of Rights like it’s a first draft. This amendment is an insult to the memory of our Founding Fathers. All Americans who value our freedoms must see to it that this misguided and dangerous amendment is rejected.”
From Americans United
The Case Against School Prayer
The original pre-1955 Pledge, without “under God.”
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
— The “godless” Pledge of Allegiance, as it was recited by generations of school children, before Congress inserted a religious phrase, “under God,” in 1954.
Keep the Church and State Forever Separate
Should Students Pray in Public Schools?
Public schools exist to educate, not to proselytize. Children in public schools are a captive audience. Making prayer an official part of the school day is coercive and invasive. What 5, 8, or 10-year-old could view prayers recited as part of class routine as “voluntary”? Religion is private, and schools are public, so it is appropriate that the two should not mix. To introduce religion in our public schools builds walls between children who may not have been aware of religious differences before.
Why Should Schools Be Neutral?
Our public schools are for all children, whether Catholic, Baptist, Quaker, atheist, Buddhist, Jewish, agnostic. The schools are supported by all taxpayers, and therefore should be free of religious observances and coercion. It is the sacred duty of parents and churches to instill religious beliefs, free from government dictation. Institutionalizing prayers in public schools usurps the rights of parents.
School prayer proponents mistake government neutrality toward religion as hostility. The record shows that religious beliefs have flourished in this country not in spite of but because of the constitutional separation of church and state.
What Happens When Worship Enters Public Schools?
When religion has invaded our public school system, it has singled out the lone Jewish student, the class Unitarian or agnostic, the children in the minority. Families who protest state/ church violations in our public schools invariably experience persecution. It was commonplace prior to the court decision against school prayer to put non-religious or nonorthodox children in places of detention during bible-reading or prayer recitation. The children of Supreme Court plaintiffs against religion in schools, such as Vashti McCollum, Ed Schempp and Ishmael Jaffree, were beaten up on the way to and from school, their families subjected to community harassment and death threats for speaking out in defense of a constitutional principle. We know from history how harmful and destructive religion is in our public schools. In those school districts that do not abide by the law, school children continue to be persecuted today.
Can’t Students Pray in Public Schools Now?
Individual, silent, personal prayer never has and never could be outlawed in public schools. The courts have declared government-fostered prayers unconstitutional – those led, required, sanctioned, scheduled or suggested by officials.
It is dishonest to call any prayer “voluntary” that is encouraged or required by a public official or legislature. By definition, if the government suggests that students pray, whether by penning the prayer, asking them to vote whether to pray or setting aside time to pray, it is endorsing and promoting that prayer. It is coercive for schools to schedule worship as an official part of the school day, school sports or activities, or to use prayer to formalize graduation ceremonies. Such prayers are more “mandatory” than “voluntary.”
What’s Wrong With A “Voluntary” Prayer Amendment?
Proponents of so-called “voluntary” school prayer amendment (such as the one proposed in 1995) are admitting that our secular Constitution prohibits organized prayers in public schools. Otherwise, why would an amendment to our U.S. Constitution be required? The nation must ask whether politically-motivated Newt Gingrich & Co. are wiser than James Madison, principal author of the Constitution, and the other founders who engineered the world’s oldest and most successful constitution!
The radical school prayer amendment would negate the First Amendment’s guarantee against government establishment of religion. Most distressing, it would be at the expense of the civil rights of children, America’s most vulnerable class. It would attack the heart of the Bill of Rights, which safeguards the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the majority.
What Would the Prayer Amendment Permit?
The text of the proposed federal amendment (as of January, 1995) reads:
“Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer. Neither the United States or any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.”
Since the right to “individual prayer” already exists, the real motive is to instill “group prayer.”
No wording in this amendment would prevent the government from selecting the prayer, or the particular version of the bible it should be taken from. Nothing restricts prayers to “nondenominational” or “nonsectarian” (not that such a restriction would make it acceptable). Nothing would prevent a school from selecting the Lord’s Prayer or other prayers to Jesus, and blasting it over the intercom. For that matter, nothing would prevent the school from sponsoring prayers to Allah or Zoroaster. Nothing would prevent principals, teachers or clergy from leading the students. Nothing would prevent nonparticipating students from being singled out. The proposal also seeks to institutionalize group prayer in other public settings, presumably public-supported senior centers, courthouses, etc.
School prayer supporters envision organized, vocal, group recitations of prayer, daily classroom displays of belief in a deity or religion, dictated by the majority. Those in the minority would be compelled to conform to a religion or ritual in which they disbelieve, to suffer the humiliation and imposition of submitting to a daily religious exercise against their will, or be singled out by orthodox classmates and teachers as “heretics” or “sinners” for not participating.
Haven’t Public Schools Always Had Prayer?
At the time the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 1962 and 1963 decrees against school-sponsored prayers and bible-reading, it is estimated religious observances were unknown in about half of the nation’s public schools.
Horace Mann, the father of our public school system, championed the elimination of sectarianism from American schools, largely accomplished by the 1840’s. Bible reading, prayers or hymns in public schools were absent from most public schools by the end of the 19th century, after Catholic or minority-religion immigrants objected to Protestant bias in public schools.
Until the 20th century, only Massachusetts required bible-reading in the schools, in a statute passed by the virulently anti-Catholic Know Nothing Party in the 1850’s. Only after 1913 did eleven other states make prayers or bible reading compulsory. A number of other states outlawed such practices by judicial or administrative decree, and half a dozen state supreme courts overruled devotionals in public schools.
As early as the 1850’s, the Superintendent of Schools of New York State ordered that prayers could no longer be required as part of public school activities. The Cincinnati Board of Education resolved in 1869 that “religious instruction and the reading of religious books, including the Holy Bible, was prohibited in the common schools of Cincinnati.”
Presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt spoke up for what Roosevelt called “absolutely nonsectarian public schools.” Roosevelt added that it is “not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in these schools.”
For nearly half a century, the United States Supreme Court, consistent with this nation’s history of secular schools, has ruled against religious indoctrination through schools (McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948), prayers and devotionals in public schools (Engel v. Vitale, 1962) and prayers and bible-reading (Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963), right up through the 1992 Weisman decision against prayers at public school commencements and Santa Fe v. Doe (2000) barring student-led prayers at public school events .
How Can Prayer Be Harmful?
Contrary to right-wing claims, piety is not synonymous with virtue. People should be judged by their actions, not by what religion they believe in or how publicly or loudly they pray.
Some Americans believe in the power of prayer; others believe nothing fails like prayer. Some citizens say prayer makes them feel better, but others contend that prayer is counterproductive to personal responsibility. Such a diversity of views is constitutionally protected; our secular government simply is not permitted to pick a side in religious debates.
“The hands that help are better far than lips that pray,” wrote Robert G. Ingersoll. Who could disagree?
Should Government Become “Prayer Police”?
How ironic that those campaigning on an anti-Big Government theme, who contend that government should get out of our private lives, would seek to tell our children who to pray to in our public schools! As many editorials across the country have pointed out, the school prayer debate seems calculated to deflect attention away from the more pressing economic questions facing our nation. As one conservative governor put it: “If we don’t deal with the economic issues, we’ll need more than prayer to solve our problems.”
Can’t Moral Decline Be Traced to the Prayer Decisions?
Some politicians like to blame everything bad in America upon the absence of school prayer. Get real! Entire generations of Americans have grown up to be law-abiding citizens without ever once reciting a prayer in school! If prayer is the answer, why are our jails and prisons bulging with born-agains! Japan, where no one prays at school, has the lowest crime rate of any developed nation.
Institutionalizing school prayer can not raise the SAT scores (only more studying and less praying can do that). It is irrational to charge that the complicated sociological problems facing our everchanging population stem from a lack of prayer in schools.
One might just as well credit the lack of prayer with the great advances that have taken place since the 1962 and 1963 decisions on prayer. Look at the leap in civil liberties, equality, environmental awareness, women’s rights, science, technology and medicine! The polio scare is over. Fountains, buses, schools are no longer segregated by law. We’ve made great strides in medical treatment. We have VCRs and the computer chip. The Cold War has ended! Who would turn the clock back?
What About the Rights of the Majority?
Our political system is a democratic republic in which we use majority vote to elect certain officials or pass referenda. But we do not use majority vote to decide what religion, if any, our neighbors must observe! The “majority” is free to worship at home, at tax-exempt churches, on the way to and from school, or privately in school. There are 16 school-less hours a day when children can pray, not to mention weekends.
Many in the “majority” do not support school prayers. And if the majority religion gets to choose which prayers are said in schools, that would mean a lot of Protestant kids will be reciting Catholic prayers! The Roman Catholic Church is the single largest denomination in our country. Should Protestant minorities be excused so the classroom can pray in unison to the Virgin Mary? In a few school districts, Muslims outnumber other religions. Should Christian minorities march into the hall with their ears covered while the principal prays to Allah over the intercom?
What’s Wrong with a Moment of Silence?
Given the regimentation of school children, it would make more sense to have a “moment of bedlam” than a “moment of silence”! Obviously, the impetus for “moments of silence or meditation” is to circumvent the rulings against religion in schools. The legislative history of such state laws reveals the religious motives behind the legislation, as in the Alabama law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985 calling for a “moment of silence for meditation or prayer.”
When a “moment of silence” law was enacted in Arkansas at the suggestion of then-Gov. Bill Clinton, the law mandating this meaningless ritual was later repealed following popular indifference. We know from experience that many teachers and principals would regard a “moment of silence” mandate as a green light to introduce prayers, causing more legal challenges at the expense of taxpayers.
Should Commencements Start with Prayers?
In 1992, the Court ruled in Lee v. Weisman that prayers at public school commencements are an impermissible establishment of religion: “The lessons of the First Amendment are as urgent in the modern world as the 18th Century when it was written. One timeless lesson is that if citizens are subjected to state-sponsored religious exercises, the State disavows its own duty to guard and respect that sphere of inviolable conscience and belief which is the mark of a free people,” wrote Justice Kennedy for the majority. He dismissed as unacceptable the cruel idea that a student should forfeit her own graduation in order to be free from such an establishment of religion.
What About “Student-Initiated” Prayer?
This is a ruse proposed by extremist Christian legal groups such as the Rutherford Institute, and the American Center for Law and Justice run by televangelist Pat Robertson. Religious coercion is even worse at the hands of another student, subjecting students to peer pressure, pitting students in the majority against students in the minority, treating them as outsiders with school complicity.
Imposing prayer-by-majority-vote is flagrant and insensitive abuse of school authority. Such schools should be teaching students about the purpose of the Bill of Rights, instead of teaching them to be religious bullies. Some principals or school boards have even made seniors hold open class votes on whether to pray at graduation, leading to hostility and reprisal against those students brave enough to stand up for the First Amendment.
“The notion that a person’s constitutional rights may be subject to a majority vote is itself anathema,” wrote Judge Albert V. Bryan, Jr. in a 1993 ruling in Virginia, one of several similar district court rulings around the nation banning any prayer, whether student- or clergy-led.
We cannot put liberties protected by our Bill of Rights up to a vote of school children! Should kindergartners be forced to vote about whether to pray before their milk and cookies? Under such reasoning, what would make it wrong for students to vote to segregate schools or otherwise violate the civil liberties of minorities?
Keep the State and Church Forever Separate
Our founders wisely adopted a secular, godless constitution, the first to derive its powers from “We, the People” and the consent of the governed, rather than claiming divine authority. They knew from the experience of religious persecution, witchhunts and religious discrimination in the Thirteen Colonies, and from the bloody history left behind in Europe, that the surest path to tyranny was to entangle church and state. That is why they adopted a secular constitution whose only references to religion are exclusionary, such as that there shall be no religious test for public office (Art. VI). There were no prayers offered at the Constitutional Convention, which shows their intent to separate religion from secular affairs.
Prayers in schools and religion in government are no panacea for social ills – they are an invitation to divisiveness. More people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other cause. As Thomas Paine pointed out, “Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”
Even Jesus Was Against School Prayer
“Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men…
“But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret.” – Matt. 6:5-6
“There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the state, as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter our common schools, they would be destroyed.”
– Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Weiss v. District Board, March 18, 1890
“Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.”
– Ulysses S. Grant, “The President’s Speech at Des Moines” (1875)
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
– First Amendment, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution
Thomas Jefferson, author of the sweeping Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, stating that no citizen “shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever…” and that to “compell a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of [religious] opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”
“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.”
– President Thomas Jefferson, 1802 letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut
Supreme Court Cases Opposing Religious Worship in Schools
McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 212 (1948).
Struck down religious instruction in public schools. The case involved school-sponsored religious instruction in which the sole nonreligious student, Jim McCollum, was placed in detention and persecuted by schoolmates in Champaign, Illinois.
Tudor v. Board of Education of Rutherford, 14 J.N. 31 (1953), cert. denied 348 U.S. 816 (1954).
Let stand a lower court ruling that the practice of allowing volunteers to distribute Gideon Bibles at public school was unconstitutional.
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
Declared prayers in public school unconstitutional.
Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374. U.S. 203 (1963).
Declared unconstitutional devotional Bible reading and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in public schools.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S., 97, 104 (1968).
Struck down state law forbidding schools to teach the science of evolution.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980).
Declared unconstitutional the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 72 (1985).
Overturned law requiring daily “period of silence not to exceed one minute… for meditation or daily prayer.”
Jager v. Douglas County School District, 862 F.2d 824 (11th Cir.), Cert. den. 490 U.S. 1090 (1989).
Let stand a lower court ruling in Georgia that pre-game invocations at high school football games are unconstitutional.
Lee v. Weisman, 120 L.E. 2d 467/ 112 S.C.T. 2649 (1992).
Ruled prayers at public school graduations an impermissible establishment of religion.
Berger v. Rensselaer, 982 F.2d, 1160 (7th Cir.) Cert. denied. 124 L.E. 2d 254 (1993).
Let stand ruling barring access to Gideons to pass out bibles in Indiana schools.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).
Barred student-led prayers at public school functions.
Written by Annie Laurie Gaylor. Copyright 1995 by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., PO Box 750, Madison, WI 53701 (608) 256-8900.
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/schoolprayer.php
The Establishment Clause and the Schools: A Legal Bulletin (3/11/2002)
An ACLU Legal Bulletin
The Establishment Clause And Public Schools
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
These opening words of the First Amendment to the Constitution set forth a dual guarantee of religious liberty. Both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause operate to protect the religious liberty and freedom of conscience of all Americans. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court has stated that the Establishment Clause was intended to accomplish this end by erecting a “wall of separation between Church and State.” Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947).
It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that “aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another,” but also those practices that “aid all religions” and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985)(“[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all”); see also County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 589-94, 598-602 (1989); Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17 (1989); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961).
For the past 20 years, the federal courts have utilized the three-pronged framework first set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), to maintain the separation of government and religion. Under the so-called “Lemon test,” a court must inquire (1) whether the government’s action has a secular or a religious purpose; (2) whether the primary effect of the government’s action is to advance or endorse religion; and (3) whether the government’s policy or practice fosters an excessive entanglement between government and religion. See 403 U.S. at 612-13. In recent years, the Supreme Court has also frequently asked whether the challenged governmental action constitutes an impermissible “endorsement” of religion. See, e.g., Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 592 (inquiry is whether the government “convey[s] or attempt[s] to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred”); id. at 592-94; School District of the City of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 390 (1985)(“[A]n important concern of the effects test is whether the symbolic union of church and state effected by the challenged governmental action is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents … as an endorsement, and by nonadherents as a disapproval, of their individual religious choices”).
I. GRADUATION PRAYER
The Supreme Court has long held that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids school-sponsored prayer or religious indoctrination. Over thirty years ago, the Court struck down classroom prayers and scripture readings even where they were voluntary and students had the option of being excused. See School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). The Court earlier had struck down a “released-time” program providing voluntary religious instruction in public schools during regular school hours. See Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Educ., 333 U.S. 203, 209-10 (1948).
More recently, the Supreme Court has held that a school district may not require that students observe a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day where the purpose of such a requirement is that students use that time for prayer. Wallace, 472 U.S. at 40. In a similar vein, the Court has held that the state may not require the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 41 (1980)(per curiam), and may not require the teaching of “creation science” in public school science classes where evolution is taught, Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 596-97 (1987).
The fundamental principle underlying all these decisions is that the Constitution commands that public schools may not take sides in matters of religion and may not endorse a particular religious perspective or any religion at all.
A. The Supreme Court’s Graduation Prayer Decision
In 1992, the Supreme Court held in Lee v. Weisman, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2649 (1992), that prayer — even nonsectarian and nonproselytizing prayer — at public school graduation ceremonies violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the inclusion of prayers as part of a school-sponsored and school-supervised graduation ceremony contravened the Establishment Clause both because of its inevitably coercive effect on students and because it conveyed a message of government endorsement of religion. See id. at 2655.
The Supreme Court focused on the subtle coercive pressures that accompany any religious exercise conducted as part of a school-sponsored event. The Court held that even though the school district in Lee did not require students to attend graduation in order to receive their diplomas, the students’ attendance and participation in graduation exercises was “in a fair and real sense obligatory.” Id. at 2655. As the Court observed:
Everyone knows that in our society and in our culture high school graduation is one of life’s most significant occasions…. Attendance may not be required by official decree, yet it is apparent that a student is not free to absent herself from the graduation exercise in any real sense of the term “voluntary,” for absence would require forfeiture of those intangible benefits which have motivated the student through youth and all her high school years.
Id. at 2659. Because attendance at high school graduation ceremonies is in effect not voluntary — and because the ceremonies themselves are an adjunct to and, in some sense, the culmination of the public school curriculum — the inclusion of a religious program in graduation ceremonies violates the Establishment Clause. As the Court stated in Lee:
The prayer exercises in this case are especially improper because the State has in every practical sense compelled attendance and participation in an explicit religious exercise at an event of singular importance to every student, one the objecting student had no real alternative to avoid.
Id. at 2661.
The Supreme Court in Lee also focused on the unavoidable entanglement of government and religion that results from any attempt by school officials to control the content of graduation prayers, even if that control extends, as it did in Lee, only to making sure that the prayers given are nondenominational. Under Lee, school officials may not in any way “assist in composing prayers as an incident to a formal exercise for their students.” Id. at 2657. As the Court explained:
The question is not the good faith of the school in attempting to make the prayer acceptable to most persons, but the legitimacy of its undertaking that enterprise at all when the object was to produce a prayer to be used in a formal religious exercise which students, for all practical purposes, are obliged to attend.
Id. at 2656. The Court observed that the religion clauses of the First Amendment “mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State.” Id.
Contrary to protests voiced by the religious right, the Supreme Court’s holding in Lee is not anti-religious and does not interfere with the rights of students, guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, to worship and pray according to the dictates of their own consciences. As the Supreme Court stated over three decades ago in Engel:
It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance.
370 U.S. at 435.
It is likewise clear that graduation prayer cannot be justified as a permissible “accommodation” of religion under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Government efforts to accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of individuals are permitted under the Establishment Clause only when they remove government-imposed burdens on the free exercise of religion. See Lee, 112 S.Ct. at 2676-77 (Souter, J., concurring); Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 601 n.51; id. at 631 (O’Connor, J., concurring).
The absence of prayer from a school’s official graduation ceremony does not impose any burden on the ability of students to affirm their religious beliefs before or after the ceremony. Nothing in Lee, for example, would prevent or prohibit like-minded students from organizing a privately sponsored baccalaureate service — provided that it was held off school grounds, was entirely voluntary, and was neither sponsored nor supervised by school officials. See 112 S.Ct. at 2677 (Souter, J., concurring).
B. Student-Initiated Graduation Prayer
1. The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Jones v. Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist.
This past year, a federal appeals court in Texas approved a school board’s policy allowing graduation prayer where a majority of the graduating class had requested that a prayer be given by a student volunteer at the school’s graduation ceremony. Jones v. Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist., 977 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ 113 S.Ct. 2950 (1993).
As a technical matter, the decision in Jones only applies within the three states comprising the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi). More fundamentally, in our view, Jones seriously misreads the Supreme Court’s holding in Lee.
The Supreme Court made clear that its decision in Lee did not turn on the fact that school officials made the decision to include prayers in the graduation ceremony or the fact that the principal selected the particular clergyman who gave the prayers. Rather, the Court held that prayers at public school graduation ceremonies carry the imprimatur of the state and, therefore, impermissibly endorse religion because the prayers are included as part of a program that is sponsored, supervised and controlled b y the school and at which student attendance is, for all practical purposes, obligatory. See 112 S.Ct. at 2657. Lee thus stands for the straightforward proposition that when public schools reserve time at a graduation ceremony for prayers, they violate the Constitution by putting the power, prestige and endorsement of the state behind whatever prayer is offered, no matter who offers it.
As the Supreme Court observed, “the school district’s supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places public pressure, as well as peer pressure, on attending students” to act in a manner that signifies participation in or approval of religious exercises that an individual student may find repugnant to his or her own beliefs. 112 S.Ct. at 2658.
The Fifth Circuit in Jones relied in part on the fact that school officials reviewed the student prayers to ensure that they were nondenominational and nonproselytizing. 977 F.2d at 971.(1) Yet this review by itself impermissibly involves school officials in deciding which prayers are acceptable and which are not. As the Supreme Court warned in its first school prayer decision, “one of the greatest dangers to the freedom of the individual to worship in his own way [lies] in the government’s placing its official stamp of approval upon one particular kind of prayer or one particular form of religious services.” Engel, 370 U.S. at 429. In Lee, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this basic tenet when it stated that “our precedents do not permit school officials to assist in composing prayers as an incident to a formal exercise for their students.” 112 S.Ct. at 2657.
This past summer, the Supreme Court decided not to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Jones. Over the past few months, leaders of the religious right have claimed that the Supreme Court’s action is an endorsement of student-initiated prayer and a vindication of Jones. That characterization is simply wrong as a matter of law. The Supreme Court’s decision does not indicate approval of the result in Jones, nor does it transform the Fifth Circuit’s decision into a national precedent.
The Supreme Court grants review on writ of certiorari in only a small fraction of the cases that are presented to it each year. Its decision not to grant review in a particular case is wholly discretionary and is rarely explained, as it was not in the J ones case. See generally P. Bator, D. Meltzer, P. Mishkin & D. Shapiro, Hart & Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System, at 1855 (3d ed. 1988).
The Court has emphasized that a denial of certiorari is not a decision on the merits and thus carries no precedential weight. See Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 296 (1989)(“[A] denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression upon the merits of the case”)(quoting United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490 (1923)(Holmes, J.)); Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U.S. 912, 917-19 (1950)(opinion of Frankfurter, J.). See generally 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper & E. Gressman, Federal Practice & Procedure 4004, at 510-511 & n.20 (1977 & Supp. 1993). As Justice William J. Brennan has explained:
A denial of certiorari is not an affirmance of the [lower] court judgment as some erroneously think . . . . The denial does not mean that the Court agrees with the result reached by the [lower] court. . . . The Court may very well take the next case raising the same question and reach a different result on the merits.
Lee v. Weisman, not Jones, is the law of the land, and Lee holds that graduation prayer is unconstitutional.
2. Other decisions on student-initiated prayer
Following the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Jones, a handful of federal courts have considered challenges to student-initiated graduation prayers. Although the outcomes of these cases have been somewhat mixed, the more well-reasoned decisions, including a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, have held that student-initiated graduation prayers run afoul of the separation of church and state required by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Federal courts in Iowa, New Jersey, and Virginia have held that student-initiated prayers of the type at issue in Jones are forbidden by the Establishment Clause. See ACLU v. Blackhorse Pike Regional Bd. of Educ., Dkt. No. 93-5368 (3d Cir. June 25, 1993 ); Friedmann v. Sheldon Community Sch. Dist., Dkt. No. C93-4052 (N.D. Iowa, May 28, 1993), vacated on standing grounds, Dkt. No. 93-2375 (8th Cir. May 28, 1993); Gearon v. Loudon County Sch. Bd., Dkt. No. 93-730-A (E.D. Va. June 21, 1993), stayed pending appeal, Dkt. No. 93-1770 (4th Cir. June 23, 1993). (2)
In Blackhorse Pike, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit enjoined a proposed student-initiated graduation prayer, noting that:
the graduation ceremony is a school sponsored event; the fact that the school board has chosen to delegate the decision regarding one segment of that ceremony to members of the graduating class does not alter that sponsorship, does not diminish the effect of a prayer on students who do not share the same or any religious perspective, and does not serve to distinguish, in any material way, the facts of this case from the facts of Lee v. Weisman.
Slip op. at 1.
In Friedmann, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa held that graduation prayers offered by authority of a majority student vote “run head on into the mandate of Lee v. Weisman” and are constitutionally impermissible. Slip op. at 2. Likewise, in Gearon, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that a school district’s protocol allowing students to vote for the offering of a nonsectarian, nonproselytizing graduation prayer violated the Establishment Clause. Slip op. at 4.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Jones also runs contrary to the decisions of other federal courts of appeal and that have addressed the issue of student-initiated prayers at school-sponsored events. In Jager v. Douglas County Sch. Dist., 862 F.2d 824 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1090 (1989), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that prayers at public high school football games violated the Establishment Clause, even though student clubs designated the individuals who gave the prayers. Likewise, in Collins v. Chandler Unified Sch. Dist., 644 F.2d 759, 762 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 863 (1981), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that student-initiated prayer and Bible readings at school assemblies violated the Establishment Clause, even though the prayers and readings were given by student volunteers.(3) Finally, the Fifth Circuit itself, in Karen B. v. Treen, 653 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1981), aff’d, 455 U.S. 913 (1982), held that the Establishment Clause prohibited student volunteers from leading fellow classmates in prayer, even though students could be excused from participating. 653 F.2d at 901-02.(4)
As these cases demonstrate, Jones relies on a crabbed reading of Lee that rests almost entirely on a distinction between school-initiated and student-initiated graduation prayer that is irrelevant to the analysis and result in Lee and that ignores the inherently coercive nature of a religious exercise conducted as part of an event convened and sponsored by the school.
The fact that a majority of students may ask the school district to allow a prayer at graduation does not change the requirements of the Establishment Clause. Indeed, the very purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent a majoritarian government from imposing particular religious beliefs — or any religious beliefs at all — on individuals in our society who do not share those beliefs. See West Virginia Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). As Justice Jackson wrote for the Court in Barnette:
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
Id. at 638 (emphasis added).
The entire premise of the Bill of Rights is that individual liberty must be safeguarded and must sometimes trump the desires of the majority. High school students, by majority vote, may no more use the machinery of the state to impose religion on a minority of dissenters than may a majority of students ask the school board to violate the First Amendment by engaging in censorship or violate the Fourth Amendment by engaging in unreasonable searches of students. As the Supreme Court declared in Lee,
[W]hile in some societies the wishes of the majority might prevail, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is addressed to this contingency and rejects [it]. The Constitution forbids the State to exact religious conformity from a student as the price of attending her own graduation.
112 S.Ct. at 2660.
Notes
1. Even the Jones court limited its decision, however, to non-sectarian prayers. The Fifth Circuit correctly indicated that a student-initiated prayer that was sectarian or proselytizing would run afoul of the Establishment Clause. See 977 F.2nd at 969.
2. Contra Harris v. Joint School District No. 241, 821 F.Supp. 638 (D. Idaho 1993), appeal docketed, No. 93-35893 (9th Cir. June 15, 1993.)
3. Notably, the Ninth Circuit in Collins found “no meaningful distinction between school authorities actually organizing the religious activity and officials merely ‘permitting’ students to direct the exercises.” 644 F.2nd at 761.
4. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit itself no appears to have backed away from the Jones court’s exceedingly narrow reading of Lee. In a subsequent case, Doe v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist., 994 F.2nd 160 (5th Cir. 1993), the court struck down the practice of offering prayers before high school basketball games. In Doe, the Fifth Circuit recognized that Lee “is merely the most recent in a long line of cases carving out of the Establishment Clause what essentially amounts to a per se rule prohibiting public-school-related or -initiated religious expression or indoctrination.” Id. at 165.
II. BIBLE DISTRIBUTION
Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that an Indiana school district’s policy and practice permitting representatives of Gideon International to distribute Bibles in public schools during school hours violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. See Berger v. Rensselaer Central School Corp., 982 F.2d 1160 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2344 (1993).
In Berger, the father of two elementary school children challenged the local school district’s longstanding practice of allowing the Gideons to come into the public schools during instructional hours and distribute Bibles to fifth-grade students. Even t hough the teachers did not participate in handing out the Bibles to the students, and even though the Bibles were not used for pedagogical purposes, the Seventh Circuit held that the in-school Bible distribution was “a far more glaring offense to First Am endment principles” than the nonsectarian graduation prayer at issue in Lee. See Berger, 982 F.2d at 1169.
A long line of Supreme Court precedents establish that it is impermissible for school officials to allow the machinery of the state to be used to gather an audience for religious exercises or instruction. See Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Educ., 333 U.S. 203; Engel, 370 U.S. 421. In McCollum, for example, the Supreme Court struck down a program allowing religious instructors to come into the public schools to teach sectarian classes during school hours, at a time when students would be free to attend the religious classes or remain in their regular classes. The Court stated that:
Here not only are the State’s tax-supported public school buildings used for the dissemination of religious doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an invaluable aid in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of the State’s compulsory public school machinery.
333 U.S. at 212.
It violates one of the Establishment Clause’s most fundamental principles to turn government power over to religion. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the public school is the forum through which basic norms of citizenship are transmitted to the next generation and is thus a “vital civic institution for the preservation of a democratic system of government.” See Abington Township, 374 U.S. at 230 (Brennan, J., concurring). When government permits a religious group to take over part of the school’s facilities during instructional time, however briefly, it strongly implies official endorsement of that religion. In the Grand Rapids case, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of avoiding any “symbolic link” between government and religion. The Court held that the second (“effects”) prong of the Lemon test will not be satisfied where the government fosters a “close identification of its powers and responsibilities with those of any — or all — religious denominations.” School District of the City of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. at 385.
A school’s participation in or supervision of the Gideons’ Bible distribution impermissibly suggests that the Gideons’ program is a valid part of a legally required education. The practice also carries the unmistakable message that religion — in this case, Christian Bible study — is the norm and the non-adherents are something less than full members of the school community. “When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion, it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs.” Lee, 112 S.Ct. at 2665 (Blackmun, J., concurring). See Wallace, 472 U.S. at 69 (O’Connor, J., concurring)(government endorsement of religion violates the Establishment Clause because it “sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that the are insiders, favored members of the political community”); see also Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)(O’Connor, J., concurring).
As the Seventh Circuit aptly observed in Berger:
the act of accepting a Bible in front of other students, with the option of returning it later privately or choosing not to read it, signals accord with the Gideons’ beliefs. Presumably, the fifth graders could make a public show of not accepting the Bible, just as students could walk out of the graduation ceremony in Lee, or leave during the scriptural reading in Abington, but the First Amendment prohibits the government from putting children in this difficult position.
982 F.2d at 1170.
Moreover, the Supreme Court repeatedly has emphasized the impressionability of primary and secondary school children and the pressure they are apt to feel from teachers, administrators and peers to conform. As the Supreme Court recently observed in Lee, “there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools” 112 S.Ct. at 2658. See Edwards, 482 U.S. at 584; see also Grand Rapids, 473 U.S. at 390 (“The symbolism of a union between church and state is most likely to influence children of tender years, whose experience is limited and whose beliefs consequently are the function of environment as much as of free and voluntary choice”).
The Seventh Circuit also properly rejected the school district’s argument that barring the Gideons from distributing Bibles in the public schools would violate the Gideons’ First Amendment free speech rights. It is well established that the free speech rights of individuals and religious groups to engage in religious expression must be subordinated to Establishment Clause concerns where those individuals or groups seek to observe their religion in a manner that unduly involves the government. See, e.g. , Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (students and teachers may not recite prayers in school); McCollum, 333 U.S. 203 (teachers may not provide religious instruction on public school property); see also Berger, 982 F.2d at 1168. Religious groups such as the Gideons remain free to promote Bible study and otherwise proselytize in ways that do not carry the imprimatur of state endorsement.
III. EQUAL ACCESS TO SCHOOL FACILITIES
The Establishment Clause issues are quite different where a school district wishes to make its facilities available for use by student or community groups during non-school hours. In such cases, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit opening the school’s facilities to religious groups — provided no elements of school sponsorship or endorsement are present.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16037res20020311.html