Chapter 20: Myth—Politics Doesn’t Matter

Page 33

“To uphold the Constitution and my oath of office, to reject any kind of religious pressure or obligation that might directly or indirectly interfere

with my conduct of the Presidency in the national interest. My record of fourteen years in supporting education, supporting complete separation of Church and State and resisting pressure from sources of any kind should be clear by now to everyone.”

Did Kennedy have a need to prove he supported “complete separation of Church and State?” Is that why his administration did not create an outcry and firestorm over the ban on school prayer? You’ll find out shortly

that there were many other crises going on simultaneously that had his attention. Yet those who had the constitutional power to address the activist Court clearly failed to do so. It was the House Democrats.

I’ve read and studied the Supreme Court’s ruling and found it debased

and incredibly flawed. Certain parts of it seem quite logical. However, the Court fails to point out who has suffered with an innocuous prayer designed primarily to promote an awareness of the God who our founders claim put our great nation together. The Court decision quotes James Madison, the

author of the First Amendment saying “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.” Hello. For almost two hundred years no one thought a public “school prayer” to be a subject of contention. Therefore, it could hardly be thought a “first experiment on our liberties” as Madison had

warned. Otherwise such a long history of the country would not have been possible without early litigation emerging. Likewise, it can hardly be thought of or viewed as the State imposition of a religion or as an assault on our liberties. After all, the prayer was nondenominational and voluntary.

The Supreme Court rationalized their judicial activism to alter our society.

“In June 2004, the Supreme Court blocked a law designed to shield Web-surfing children from pornography, ruling that requiring adults to

register or use access codes before viewing objectionable material would infringe on their rights.” 22 Does the greater good of society no longer matter to the activist Court? Why is it that the safety of our children is ignored because the Court finds it inconvenient to adults? Does the Court

now worship at the altar of individual rights over societal rights? In the process of upholding some individual rights, the Court stomps on others!