I recently was having a debate with a friend about Prayer in Schools and it got me thinking. First off the debate obviously stems around the first amendment which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Opponents of allowing prayer use this to say that the Bill of Rights prohibits it. However, as I read it I draw the conclusion that it should be allowed. Just because prayer is allowed does not mean that the government is establishing a religion. As long as no religion is prevented from prayer, and no religion is preferred then there is no problem. In fact there are Supreme Court rulings to back this up. The latest of which was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v Grumet 512 U.S. 687 (1994), where Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion". Then as far as the "free exercise thereof," to me that seems pretty straight forward, and it would seem that to me again the Supreme Court agreed. In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Supreme Court ruled, "permitting governmental actions that were neutral regarding religion." So I just can't see where the debate of violating the First Amendment comes from, they I got hit with a shocker.
I was told that I couldn't understand because I am not a college graduated, and apparently thus-forth not intelligent I suppose. Well ok, I can see that one, after all constitution lawyers and judges have to go to law school for years and 98% of congressmen are college grads. However, since the our government was formed "by the people, for the people," shouldn't the people be the judges? I say this because in 2007 only 27% of Americans held college degrees, which as I crunch the numbers, means that people like me are the majority. Shouldn't our laws be written so that the common man can understand them?
No comments:
Post a Comment