On the other side, they have Donald May who wouldn’t know the law if it were spelled out right in front of him. Which it is.
Let’s start with the sensible Loewy:
How, you might ask, can removing prayer from school possibly be good news for religious people? Well, in the first place, the Court did not remove prayer, it only removed school-sponsored prayer. There is a huge difference. Students are free to pray in school anytime they wish so long as they don’t disturb the class in doing so. So, if a group of two, 10 or 100 want to meet at school during lunch, recess, before or after school, or at any other free time and offer a prayer, they are free to do so.
We are so much better off today when students for whom a particular religious exercise is meaningful can participate in it on their own at school, unencumbered by the presence of others who neither revere nor understand their sacred blessings. Much of the objection to the school prayer decisions come from those who do not understand them.
Well said. Perfectly reasonable. Thank you, professor.
Now, let’s hear the rebuttal of Donald May, a failed congressional candidate who, proving Loewy’s point, doesn’t understand the law whatsoever.
Murray v. Curlett and Abington v. Schempp, two cases decided together in 1963, prohibited prayer and Bible reading in public schools. In doing so, the Court recognized atheism as a religion, gave it preference over Christianity, and established secular atheism as our national religion. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The educational achievements, discipline and manners of our youth have since been in a steep decline.
Not only does May wrongly think atheism is the law of the land, Loewy just explained why prayer and Bible reading is perfectly fine in public schools as long as it’s not school-sponsored. It’s clear May doesn’t know how to think; who knew he also didn’t know how to read?
Loewy tried one more time to explain this in simple terms:
The school prayer cases established neutrality, not atheism…
Whether this was a good idea or a bad idea, it most assuredly was not an establishment of atheism. Indeed, if 100 years from now, we should become a majority atheist nation (and I certainly am not suggesting that would be a good thing), those of us who believe in God can rely on the school prayer decisions to preclude such atheistic tyranny.
Well, I think it’d be a pretty good thing to have a majority atheist nation, but point taken: The same law that prevents an establishment of Christianity as a national religion would also prevent an establishment of atheism.
What does May have to say about that?
Nothing. He’s still prattling on about how atheism is our national religion. Really.
Students are taught by the court-mandated presence of secularism and the absence of the Judeo-Christian religion in our schools that God’s laws and moral behavior are not important.
Our federal government has illegally imposed secular atheism as our national religion, redefined the free exercise of religion as “coercion” and prevented the voluntary exercise of religion in schools.
It’s telling that the guy whose ignorance is in full display is the one who ran for Congress.
I only wish I could see the facial reactions of Loewy as he read May’s “rebuttals,” knowing that the incoming students at his law school could very easily run circles around the dimwitted adult who thinks he can fix Washington.
(Thanks to Brian for the link)