I attend numerous meetings of governmental bodies throughout the course of the year — school boards, counties, cities, etc.
At the beginning of each one, the assembled council will start each meeting with a prayer, one that seeks Jesus’ intercession. That’s significant, given that this country, and certainly this area, is predominantly Christian.
Moreover, the country was founded on, and certainly extols in its laws, Christian tenets and morality. It is not advocating for a specific religion, but it is what it is, and in my 40-plus years of covering meetings, I haven’t heard anyone complain, either first-, second- or even third-hand.
Yet still based on, in my view, a fallacious interpretation of the First Amendment, any time the subject of prayer and the Decalogue (the 10 Commandments, if you prefer) come up in relation to governmental entities, there is backlash and vitriol, mostly in the form of lawsuits (because the courts have the final say over any and everything in this country, apparently).
A few weeks ago, a Texas judge blocked the display of the 10 Commandments posters in public schools, the posting of which was enshrined into law during this year’s legislative session.
The judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, said the law is so not neutral because it favors Christianity. According to a story by Texas Tribune writers, the judge was quoted as saying that “it would likely interfere with families’ exercise of their sincere religious or non-religious beliefs in substantial ways.”
He also called the posters a method of coercion.
The ruling is under appeal, and rightly so. The argument that the 10 Commandments are coercive, though, is specious, in that the school is not posting them to force students and faculty to observe them. Arguing that it is a violation of the First Amendment has always struck me as dumb, since the law admonishes Congress — the D.C. House and Senate folks — from creating a state religion.
Just that portion should be enough to convince thinking folks that Congress had no part of that.
The second part of the relevant passage says, “or prevent the free exercise of religion.” Seems to me that disallowing any public display of Christianity does just that, or in a nutshell, preventing the establishment of a religion by preventing a religion. That may be what Steely Dan referred to as pretzel logic.
I also can’t understand why courts have become the hammer for the pearl-clutching minority. Every time our president acts on something it becomes tied up in court; now, it’s trickling down into the realm of the states (even though this battle has been fought for decades).
I pointed out that courts are increasingly being thought of as the final say in all things. While the judicial branch is certainly an integral portion of the checks and balances of government, the part that always is ignored is that this is a government of, by and for the people. If the people, who have elected representatives, have deemed it meet and good for a list of really good ideas to be placed in schools, then so be it.
Should that not be the case, then there are electoral remedies in place to change things.
I could go on and make arguments about how other countries take pride in their religions, some to the point of violence, but this country is different in that it welcomes all without reservation. Forcing us to deny the existence of our founding principles in the name of acceptance, though, is at the very least oxymoronic.
The people have decided. Let that decision stand.
Tony Farkas is editor of the Trinity County News-Standard and the San Jacinto News-Times. He can be reached at tony@polkcountypublishing.com.
