The Myths
No one who is paid by any government agency, at any level of government, may lead others in prayer or use any religious language in a public setting.
No religious objects such as crosses or nativity scenes can be placed on public land no matter if it is local, state, or federal land.
No religious activity can take place on land that is owned by any level of government.
All it takes is for one individual to complain that they are offended and all of these public displays of religion are stopped. This all takes place in the name of the separation of church and state which is the true meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
The Truth
None of these activities are banned by First Amendment, any other amendment of the Constitution, or any valid federal law. The First Amendment was added to the US Constitution to protect these activities not prevent them.
The establishment clause of the First Amendment only prevents the federal government from establishing an official state religion such as England did with the Church of England.
There is a second clause to this amendment that deals with religion, the free exercise of religion clause. For some reason this clause always seems to get forgotten by those trying to ban these public religious activities. The purpose of this clause is to prevent the federal government from interfering with the free exercise of religion by any individual regardless if they are employed by any government agency or not; whether the activity takes place on public land or not.
The Facts
Recently a federal judge ruled that students at a Texas high school could not pray at their own graduation because this would lead to irreparable harm to the one student that objected to the student led prayer. This judge threatened to jail any student that defied his ban. The fact that this ruling was overturned on appeal does not prevent it from being a perfect example to illustrate how much the meaning of the First Amendment has been distorted.
The freedom to exercise our religious beliefs in public as well as private is one of our most important natural rights. The Pilgrims fled England because they were persecuted for exercising their religious beliefs.
The freedom to exercise our religious beliefs is not granted to us by the First Amendment. The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect our individual natural right of freedom of religion by preventing the federal government from interfering with our God given natural rights in any way. Freedom of religion, like all natural rights, is an individual right granted to us by God. We are free to exercise all our natural rights as we wish as long as we do not harm others or interfere with the ability of others to exercise their natural rights.
If someone is offended because others are exercising traditional religious beliefs in public, that does not rise to the level of harm sufficient to prevent one individual, let alone a group of individuals, from exercising their natural rights in public. The case can be made if the religious behavior being exercised is so outside traditional society norms that it greatly offends a large number of people, then the local community can stop that activity. If the religious activity is harmful, such as human sacrifice, incest, polygamy, or animal sacrifice, the States can outlaw it.
No matter how harmful or offensive the religious activity is the federal government cannot interfere with it in any way. That is the purpose of First Amendment, to prevent the federal government. and only the federal government. from interfering with our most important natural rights. The federal government has now turned the First Amendment on its head so many ways it is now preventing the free exercise of traditional religion by individuals across the entire country and we are virtually powerless to stop it. This one federal court decision was overturned but countless have not been.
Our founding fathers knew it was dangerous for the federal government to meddle with our natural rights in any way because we would not be able to restrain the federal government when it becomes abusive, as it is now.
Our founding fathers also knew individuals could abuse their natural rights by harming others or interfering with the natural rights of others, They knew that some government body would have to pass laws to try and prevent these abuses and deal with them when they happen, Our founding fathers knew it was far better to make these decisions on the most local level possible. The more local the government the easier it is for the people to keep a close eye on it and deal with it when it becomes abusive.
Some ordinary, day to day, type decisions have to made concerning the exercise of religion. These decisions include such topics as: whether or not to allow prayer services on street corners, or in public parks. The local government is the proper place for making these decisions.
When it comes to preventing harmful religious practices such as human sacrifice and polygamy, the State level is the proper place for this.
Freedom of religion has been turned around 180 degrees by our out of control federal government. The current meaning of the clause is freedom from religion. Freedom from religion is not a natural God-given natural right. From the very beginning of our country, we as a people, have always been tolerant of other people’s religious beliefs. Now a small and very vocal group of very intolerant people have made it very difficult for the majority of us to practice our traditional religious beliefs in public. They have accomplished this by turning to a group of federal judges from all levels including the Supreme Court. These federal judges are violating the freedom of religion clause and are now doing exactly the opposite of the very plain meaning and purpose of the First Amendment.
The public education system and main stream media are also guilty accomplices because they promote this perverted meaning of the First Amendment as absolute historic fact. They have done such an outstanding job distorting the meaning of the First Amendment that even many in the Tea Party get it wrong when they discuss the original meaning.
Here are some other misconceptions of the original meaning of the First Amendment I have encountered.
Students can lead prayers but teachers cannot because they are paid by the government. Wrong, public school teachers and all other government officials at any level including the federal level, did not surrender their most important natural rights when they became teachers or government employees.
If you recite a Christian prayer on government property or display a Christian object on public property you have to include prayers and objects from the Jewish and Muslim religions otherwise you would be violating the establishment clause. Wrong, this clause only pertains to the US Congress period. Also the meaning of the word religion as understood by the framers of the Constitution applied only to different Christian sects such as Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans,
Religion cannot be taught nor can the Bible be read in public school because of the separation of church and state. Wrong. Up until 1962 religion was taught and the Bible read regularly in public school. The separation of church and state is a lie.
The 14th Amendment extended Bill of Rights to the State and local level giving the Supreme Court the power to strike down State laws. Wrong. The doctrine of incorporation is a lie. That was discussed during the 14th Amendment debates and was shot down.
The Proof
All of these religious activities took place all across America from the time the first European Settlers arrived, during the entire time we were an English colony, through the time our Constitution and Bill of Rights was were ratified, up until 1947 without interference. In 1947 the Supreme Court violated the Constitution by first introducing the separation of church and state doctrine along with the incorporation doctrine. This interference began then and has since increased because Supreme Court and all federal courts have been routinely striking State and locals laws and issuing rulings banning public exercises and displays of religion.
During the congressional debates for the Bill of Rights James Madison proposed extending the Bill of Rights to the State and local level and giving the federal courts veto powers over state laws. This idea was very quickly shot down. It is clear from the transcripts of these debates that the Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the State and local levels. The idea of the 14th Amendment doing the same was discussed in congress during the debates for that amendment. That idea was also quickly shot down.
Our founding fathers frequently wrote about the importance of keeping religion and morality firmly established in public life. They saw this as a fundamentally important method of preserving liberty.
The entire text of the First Amendment
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.
Constitution Mythbuster 
Michael Isenberg
June 12, 2011
Some questions:
1) Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom that “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical”. Should this be taken into account when considering how the Founders understood the Establishment Clause? Does taxing an atheist to pay for public property where prayers are held or religious symbols displayed constitute compelling him to “furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves”?
2) Isn’t incorporation a reasonable application of the Privileges and Immunities clause in the 14th Amendment? If not, how should the Privileges and Immunities clause be understood? Also, please point me to the relevant excerpts from Congressional debate over the 14th Amendment.
Thank you!
Mike
constitutionmythbuster
June 12, 2011
The fourteenth Amendment was written because Southern States refused to apply State laws equally to former slaves. They passed laws stripping the fundamental rights that are protected by the Bill of Rights from these former slaves. Because of the Bill of Rights the US Congress and Federal Courts did not have the power to deal with these racist discriminatory State Laws The Amendment gave the US Congress and the Federal Courts the power to override State Laws concerning the Bill of Rights only if these laws denied former slaves the basic rights the rest State’s population enjoyed. As long as these State applied equally to everyone in the State the US congress and Federal Courts could not Act. The US Congress and Fed Courts could not overturn State Laws it did not like just make them apply equally to every in the State
Here are some quotes from the debates. I could not find the full transcript from the debates yet but I will keep looking
Stevens remarked that its provisions “are all asserted, in some form or another, in our DECLARATION or organic law. But the Constitution limits only the action of Congress, and is not a limitation on the States. This Amendment supplies that defect, and allows Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States.” Representative Thayer stated that the proposed amendment “simply brings into the Constitution what is found in the bill of rights of every State,” and that “it is but incorporating in the Constitution of the United States the principle of the civil rights bill which has lately become a law.”
Here is the Civil Rights Bill. The Fourteenth Amendment put that bill together with the Bill of Rights
On April 9, after both houses had mustered the requisite two-thirds vote to override Johnson’s veto, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 became law. As enacted, § 1 provided: “Citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, . . . shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens
It is essentially declared in the Declaration of Independence and in all the provisions of the Constitution. Notwithstanding this we know that State laws exist, and some of them of very recent enactment, in direct violation of these principles. Congress has already shown its desire and intention to uproot and destroy all such partial State legislation in the passage of what is called the civil rights bill…. It certainly seems desirable that no doubt should be left existing as to the power of Congress to enforce principles lying at the foundation of all republican government if they be denied or violated by the States.[140
Henderson referred and illustrates the objectives sought by the Republicans in Congress: “For if they [blacks] were . . . entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race … the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went”
constitutionmythbuster
June 12, 2011
When Jefferson wrote the Virginia Act for Establishing Religioys Freedom he was trying to de-establish the Anglican Church as the official church of Virginia. He was oblecting to taxes being used to support that church directly. He was not objecting to taxes being used to pay for parks or other public land where religious activiry may or may not take place. The government is not directly funding the religious activity. People are free to use those public parks and land as they wish. If religious activity takes place on public land the govnment is in no way compelling you to prrticipate in it. If you are offended by traditional religious activity and symbols on public land you can simply walk away from them. Only a very small percentage of people are offended by traditional religiuos activities and symbols on public land because these activities are conflicting with their religious beliefs. Atheism is a religious belief. Denying the existance of God is still a religious belief. If these religious activities are removed from public land the government is forcing the religious beliefs of athiests on non atheist violating the religious freedom of religious people. Here is the complete text od the Virginia Act for Establishing religious freedlm
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html
Here is the second to last paragraph from that act
“Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
Hee is Jefferson’s view on the
Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume ahthority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General [Federal] Government. It must then rest with the States
That is from a letter Jefferson wrote to Sameul Miller in 1808. Well after the adoption of the Bill of Rights,
I’m Still working on your questions about the Fourteenth Amandment. I’ll have that later this evening
Michael Swenson
August 28, 2013
For years atheists and evolutionists have been using our tax dollars to indoctrinate/brainwash children in our public education system with their religions. In fact, by definition, everyone can be deemed religious; and it comes out in the choices people make, constantly. An individual’s worldview/religion is demonstrated by all that they think, do and say; so, if we as a society; ban all religious expression on the grounds of whether or not our tax dollars support anything we fundamentally oppose; expressed by others; then we, in fact, are attempting to do the impossible. Atheists want the world to think they are irreligious while zealously attempting to defend a worldview/religion that they cannot prove and is in fact a worldview/religion that has been scientifically dis-proven https://www.facebook.com/notes/michael-swenson/no-more-brainwashing-no-more-lies-science-proves-who-god-is-part-1/518695411542756. So, Michael Isenberg, your argument is moot; because when you censor all other religious expression but your own or attempt to do so; especially in any public forum; you are only becoming the very tyranny and oppression you obviously disdain in others. All religious expression must be allowed; all speech must be allowed; to censor any; is automatically an attempt to establish your own. You cherish your own rights; and pretend in so doing to champion others; but the truth is anyone for censorship is trampling upon the God-given and constitutional rights of others and as such I would hope the courts send any who try to do that quickly away; dismissed for the aforementioned reasons.