Conservatives Of The Upstate: A Look At The 1st Amendment: Part II: Freedom Of Religion

God's laws vs Government's Abilities To Create Them

by Junius Smith

The first amendment to the constitution was enacted in order to guarantee that the Congress could make no law that established a State religion ~ meaning a national, government endorsed religion. For instance, the Federal government could not force everyone to be Catholics or everyone to Muslim.

The same sentence that assures us the government cannot and will not have a national religion, provides for the free exercise of religious practice. Do as you please as long as you are peaceably assembling. There is no "as long as you are not infringing on someone else's rights. Someone else doesn't have a right to "not hear". Someone else that does not agree with a peaceable assembly peaceably has the right to leave and it could be argued; the responsibility to leave.

The Ninth Circuit has recently ruled as such.

Their ruling provided for all religions to be free to pray at governmental meetings. In most American minds, God is the omnipotent being and not government.

Many of God's laws deal with honesty and proper human behavior, while governments throughout the ages have been corrupt. A prayer before governmental meetings gives recognition of the basic good of God's righteousness;  above that of government.

Under our Constitution, all religions have the right to pray, go to the church of choice, and interact with government with a right to free exercise of religion.

Lawyers who have argued that "the establishment clause" forbids prayer in governmental meetings have erred, and the judges that have ruled have erred, and Congress; which has no rights to make laws on religion, have erred.

There have been opinions (case opinions) that have from time to time been looked at as law, but later changed.

The case of whether slavery was legal is an example where it was ruled as legal by the courts, only to be changed later and put it into law in the 13th Amendment.

There is a procedure for changing the Constitution and those who disagree with it should use the lawful procedure rather than put words in the mouth of a judge who does not agree with the wording.

The real truth is that the matter of prayer should be handled by the State courts as the Constitution strictly forbids Congress to pass laws restricting the free exercise of religion. If Congress is banned from passing the laws to begin with, then the Supreme Court is acting out of line by ruling on religion.