I swear that what began as a handy reference source has now developed into a curiosity magnet. Its lure has been with the caliber of details, which were previously routine but, in large part, have been absent from the media for way too long. This informational stockpile has also unveiled the media’s “dumbing down” efforts by a simple comparison of its content qualities.
One example was this Orlando Sentinel, June 25, 2000, Charley Reese piece entitled, “Supreme Court ruling on football game is flat wrong.” That ruling stated, in part,” that a school district may not allow a student to lead a prayer at a football game.” If nothing else, this blast from the past provides a timeline, a tenure to what was and continues to be a blatant violation of our Constitution’s First Amendment protections of our religious freedoms of worship and free expression. When a majority of learned jurists concur with such illegality, one must ask about the “what” or “who” they are addressing!
Well, Mr. Reese’s piece answered both questions by quoting a Mikhail Gorbachev 1987 statement, “There must be no letup in the war against religion because as long as religion exists, Communism cannot prevail.” Although the quote solves those above-mentioned inquiries, equally important is that key word, “letup!” It’s an obvious reference to an ongoing agenda which is best when left uninterrupted, in other words, without “letup.”
Mr. Reese further questions this so-called verdict by comparing the student’s prayer at a football game to when FDR “led the nation in a public prayer over national radio hookups.” Also noted is Reese’s pertinent comment: “And if forbidding a high school student from leading a prayer at a football game isn’t prohibiting the free exercise of religion, what is?”
This twenty-five-year-old content also contained both caution and a useful analysis. First, Mr. Reese conveys Washington’s belief that “anyone who is an enemy of religion is an enemy of republican government.” Then, this writer makes an apt and useful comparison: “that Washington saw religion as essential to a free republic and Gorbachev sees the destruction of religion as essential to the triumph of communism.” Both statements are easily verified.
Finally, Mr. Reese cites what he terms “this anti-prayer business” being born during the 1960s and that “all federal judges are the result of political patronage…are political appointees, not necessarily scholars and certainly not saints.” With these unauthorized intrusions against our judiciary’s neutrality, is it any wonder that verdicts sway with the prevailing majority?
To further validate the previous dilemma, is this concern of a President’s party, versus the issue of replacing a retiring Supreme Court Justice? Over time, maintaining a “conservative” or “liberal” court has won out over preserving neutrality. This political presence is as understandable as it is elementary to the executive and legislative branches, but it’s poison to our third branch. Without neutrality’s return, America’s Judeo-Christian foundations and its subsequent societal support are on borrowed time!
Agree? Disagree? Submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com – We want to hear from you, too!
