More tales of indoctrination from the Educational Industrial Complex: My wife and I were shocked when our 5-year-old daughter began to tell us that someone on staff at her school saw her praying – told her to stop – and said “it is not good”. This…
The supposed “wall of separation” has TWO sided. It also protects US from YOU telling us that we cannot pray or worship. A state institution IS NOT EVER allowed to infringe on the right of the individual OF ANY AGE. Let us review:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *****or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;***** or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
VAN ORDEN V. PERRY (2005)
A 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court held that displaying a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capital does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the plurality, observed that “Such acknowledgments of the role played by the Ten Commandments in our Nation’s heritage are common throughout America.” Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 688 (2005).
Furthermore, citing an earlier Supreme Court case, he stated that ‘”[We] find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.” Id. at 684 (citing Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313–14 (1952)).
In Cantwell v. Connecticut(1940), the Supreme Court held that the free exercise of religion is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process clause.”
RIGHT OF PRIVACY: PERSONAL AUTONOMY
The right of privacy has evolved to protect the freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to perform certain acts or subject themselves to certain experiences. This personal autonomy has grown into a ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, this liberty is narrowly defined and generally only protects privacy of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing. There have been attempts to further extend the right of privacy under the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; however, a general right to personal autonomy has yet to take hold beyond limited circumstances.
Depth on this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/personal_autonomy
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947) Justice Hugo L. Black (on the Court 1937-1971) detailed the history and importance of the Establishment Clause.
As Black continued in expressing the majority opinion, he enumerated the meaning of the “establishment of religion clause”:
1. Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church.
2. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions nor prefer one religion over another.
3. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
4. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.
5. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
6. Neither a state nor the federal government can openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.
These principles came to be known as the establishment clause test.
EVERY case I can find wherein the courts have ruled that there is a violation of the Establishment Clause; has been because the institution chose to conduct a sanctioned prayer at a gathering or event.
THERE IS NO such violation in the individual praying over their food. There is NO direct coercion or peer pressure applied to ANY person who is not the individual saying the personal prayer over their food.
Further, it is a violation of The First Amendment for a school official to inhibit the free exercise of expression of ANY kind that is NOT criminal, dangerous, disruptive, or coercive to others.
The problem here lies in the fact that now that the school has mentioned it at all and it has been printed as a story; the school will be watching this child personally. As one that has dealt with this kind of “Zero Tolerance” and “Social Engineering” crap in my own life; I can tell you the school will in fact continue to compound this wrong and there will be little for the parents to do but stand up and refuse to take it.