Do Students Have Religious Rights?

Share Button

If any school official or policy violates these rights, the school and its governing administration are in violation of section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and they will lose ESEA funds. Nothing scares a school district more than the possibility of losing funds.

Despite the wishes of freedom from religion advocates, our children have religious rights while attending public school. I think several citizens are unaware of these rights.

As I have previously written, our tyrannical Supreme Court in the 1960’s re-interpreted the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment in order to promote their hostility towards religion. In order to do this, they had to ignore history, ignore over 150 years of judicial precedents, ignore over 150 years of national doctrine, and ignore the will of the people.

A Quick Recap

I will get to the list of religious rights that the supreme court has graciously granted to students,  but I would first like to give a brief recap of the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Most freedom from religious militants dismiss the free exercise clause.  It is there, it is plain.  We can exercise our religious conscience.  But lets briefly focus on the establishment clause

For over 150 years, the word “Congress” in the establishment clause was defined as “congress.” Duh. What else could it mean? Who needed that defined? Well, for 150 years, no one needed it defined, because that is how it is written. It was common sense. One did not need to be a legal scholar to know what the word “congress” meant and to what it referred.

For over 150 years, the phrase “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” meant that congress could not make any law that created a national religious denomination. The phrase was clearly written, clearly understandable.

This was the national policy for over 150 years. Yes, it was even the national policy during the Founding Fathers’ era.

However, in the mid 20th century, a supreme court judge, Hugo Black, with his years and years of bench sitting and years and years of law school indoctrination education, decided to tell the country what the word “congress” really meant, and what the phrase “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” really meant.

He was so kind to put his years of legal mumbo-jumbo training to use in order to educate us peons who actually think that words and phrases actually can be defined according to how they are written. He was so gracious to put his vast superior gnostic knowledge to use, in order to educate everyone who was below his high station and below his high-level of intelligence, by explaining the true hidden meaning of the clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

The true meaning of the 1st Amendment was so well hidden, that no one, no prior judge, no prior senator, no prior congressman, no prior president, no Founding Father, and not even the original authors knew the true meaning. That is how intelligent, gracious, and gnostic Hugo Black was. He was able to decipher the true meaning of the 1st Amendment.  Bless his heart.

According to Hugo Black’s superior legaltarian knowledge “Congress” actually means “any federal, state, or local government agency, any federal, state, or local government entity, any federal, state, or local government employee or official, or any federal, state, or local government publication.”

According to Hugo Black’s superior legaltarian knowledge, “…shall make no law…” actually means “…shall not do, encourage, promote, discuss, participate in, or condone…”

According to Hugo Black’s superior legaltarian knowledge, “respecting an establishment of religion…” actually means “anything that is NOT secular in nature, or anything that could be potentially perceived as being NOT secular in nature.”

This true meaning of the 1st Amendment was so well hidden, congress, in 1800, through making a law, established that the National Capitol Building could serve as a church on Sundays. Not even the wise Thomas Jefferson knew the true meaning of the 1st Amendment, because he attended church in the national Capitol Building throughout his presidency. Too bad those Founding Fathers didn’t have the intelligently superior and gnostic Hugo Black to teach them the true meaning of the 1st Amendment. Bless his heart.

For over 150 years, religious freedom and the avocation of religion had been a keystone of our country’s founding and our country’s basic principles.

A quick example of this is found in Article 3, of the Northwest Ordinance (1787, the founders’ era):

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Religion is #1 in that list of necessities.

But thanks to Hugo Black, an entire generation of historically illiterate citizens now believe our country was founded on the principle of freedom from religion. However, our founders were NOT hostile to religion. Our founders were NOT primarily deists. Our founders encouraged, supported, promoted, and openly participated in religion.

The Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction

In the 1960’s, spearheaded by the hostile Hugo Black, the supreme court expanded its jurisdiction and took over religion. They now determine what is and is not religiously acceptable. They have become anti constitutional, and have elevated themselves above God by encroaching upon His jurisdiction.

Since the supreme court has taken over God’s jurisdiction, they have been gracious and kind enough to give a detailed list of what is religiously acceptable in public schools. I don’t know how they can constitutionally create a detailed list, since no such list exists in The Constitution, but since most citizens, and nearly ALL federal, state, and local government agencies, employees, and officials view the Supreme Court with idolatry and as the ultimate authority on religious matters, I think we should all know what is on this approved list.

This can all be found on this buried webpage of The Department of Education website. This page has tons of historical inaccuracies, but this is what we have to work with, apparently. This webpage also cites horrible judicial precedents which ignored over 150 years of national doctrine concerning the 1st Amendment. But this is what we have to work with, apparently.

Also remember, since the supreme court has taken over God’s jurisdiction on these matters, these rights in this list do not come from God, but from the supreme court. Since they believe they have the jurisdiction now, they grant the rights, and they can therefore take them away. I suggest we exercise these rights while we can. Let’s educate our children on these rights and encourage them to exercise them.

Students’ Religious Rights

  • Students may pray during non-instructional time.
  • Students may pray over meals.
  • Students can pray as a group during non-instructional time as long as it is initiated and led by students.
  • Students may bring The Bible and other holy scriptures to school.
  • Students may read The Bible and other holy scriptures during non-instructional time, as other non-religious activities are allowed.
  • Students may study scripture together during non-instructional time such as during recess, at breaks, and at lunch, as other non-religious activities are also allowed.
  • Students may participate in religious discussions during non-instructional time, as other secular discussions are allowed.
  • Students may form religious clubs, as other non-religious clubs are permitted.
  • These religious clubs must have access to school property in the same way as other groups have.
  • If the school allows announcements, notifications, adverts, etc for nonreligious clubs and groups, they must allow announcements, notifications, adverts, etc. for religious clubs and religious groups.
  • Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments when it is applicable. For example, if a student is asked to write a poem on any subject or length, they can write it in the form of a prayer. If a student is asked to draw a picture of something they learned or did over the weekend, they can draw a picture of a baptism, of Christ on the cross, of someone praying, etc. If they are asked to give an oral speech on any subject in world history, they can give a speech on Martin Luther and his religious beliefs. If asked to recite a favorite quote, they can recite a scripture verse. If asked to write a math problem as a paragraph, a student could write something like “If one thousand people listened to Jesus Christ, and seventy-five percent of those people accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, that would mean that seven-hundred and fifty were saved.” Teachers must grade these on academic merit. If a student is asked to write a report on how a toilet functions, but instead writes a paper on the exodus of Moses, this would not be acceptable.

Pretty sweet, eh? Students have more rights than you probably thought. Educate and encourage your kids to exercise these rights. They need not be ashamed.

If any school official or policy violates these rights, the school and its governing administration are in violation of The Constitution. But they won’t care about that tidbit. What they need to know is that they are in violation of section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and they will lose ESEA funds. Nothing scares a school district more than the possibility of losing funds. If you need to use this knowledge to defend your children’s rights, I encourage you to do so as diplomatically as possible. I wouldn’t cite The Constitution, since most public officials have no idea what The Constitution says, nor do they care. Nor do they care about the over 150 years of history on these matters. They only care about two things on these matters: what the omnipotent and gnostic supreme court says, and the status of funds.

All you need to mention is section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and a loss of federal funds. That’ll do it.

Let’s all express words of appreciation and gratitude toward the supreme court for granting our children these rights. Okay, not really, that would be idolatry.

For those of you who wonder about teachers’ religious rights at public schools: they don’t have any. Anything they do that is NOT secular must be done in private. Although the Bill of Rights is supposed to apply to every individual, the judicial branch does not allow this.  They take it on a case by case basis, and must prescribe convoluted rules and regulations regarding rights found in The Bill of Rights.  It depends on which group the person belongs.  It also depends on the judge.  A rather neurotic and anti constitutional form of legislating.  And not at all what the founders intended.

Share Button

52 thoughts on “Do Students Have Religious Rights?”

  1. Amazing. I had no idea. I always assumed all religious activities were banned in public schools.

    And I agree with you. Quoting The Constitution will not matter to government employees. Quoting the section of the ESEA will have a much more effective outcome. With all the red tape, dotting i’s and crossing t’s, all the many rules and regulations, all the paperwork, etc., school administrators are indirectly trained that bureaucracy is paramount. The Constitution is too simple to be considered bureaucratic. Only a government act with at least 9524 sections will get their attention.

  2. Haha. I loved the math example you gave. You know that would make some public employees turned red in anger.

    It is so stupid that the courts have to tell us what words and phrases mean. They over complicate nearly everything they touch.

  3. I just did some reading into Hugo Black. What a gem. A KKK member. And he liked his porn. Legislated from the bench often. His actions demonstrate he subscribed to anticonstitutionalism.

  4. It seems like the court system is constantly swinging back and forth on what it allows religiously. Why don’t we just put something in the law that is simple and promises religious freedom across the board. Oh, wait, we already have that. The Bill of Rights in The Constitution. This right comes from God. The fact that the judicial branch fights against these rights, or regulates these rights shows that they are as a whole, against God, therefore under demonic influence in some form or another. They have been deceived by their own wisdom and self-importance. The whole judicial branch needs to be rebuilt.

  5. I like the sarcasm and mocking of Hugo Black and the supreme court. They need to be mocked. Evil hates to be mocked, and what Hugo black and supreme court has done is evil. I had never thought of it before, but you are right, the supreme court has stolen God’s jurisdiction on many issues. Rather blasphemous when you think about it. And it is disgusting that teachers do not have religious freedom, just because of whom their employer is.

  6. I wish i would have known this last year. One of my teachers told me to put away my Bible. It was free time and others were reading other books, so I guess she violated the act. I’m going to memorize the section number so I can confidently quote it to a teacher if they violate it. Thank you.

  7. Your an stupid ass. the founders were deitsts and atheists. John Adams said that this would be the best of world if there were no religion at all. He also said that this is not a chrisitan nation. Thomas Jefferson slashed his bible. They hated religion.

    1. Hi Leena,

      Thanks for reading my article.

      Yes, I am quite familiar with the quote you mentioned from President Adams, although it is completely divorced from context. Here is the quote in full:

      “Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!’ But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.”

      John Adams meant the exact opposite of what you quoted. Religion is necessary.

      In all my study and research, I have yet to find a valid citation that quotes Adams as saying this is not a christian nation. I think the quote you are referring to actually comes from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli in Article IX (John Adams was president at the time):

      “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

      This quote is one of the most used quotes from those who decide to ignore all the original sources from founders declaring this nation to be a religious or a Christian nation. Problem is, the sentence does not end where that quote ends. Here it is in full:

      “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

      I don’t have time to go into a history of what led up to the Treaty of Tripoli. Summarized, the Barbary Powers War was the United States’ first war on Muslim terrorists. What the quote means, in context, is that the U.S. should not be counted among the other christian nations which had already declared open hostility towards Muslims, so there was no reason to war with the U.S., that we didn’t have a “jihad” against them. In other words “We have no quarrel with you. Let’s not fight.”

      The war, however went on, costing money and lives, despite the treaty. In order to keep the Muslim pirates from warring with us, we paid them off. But they still plundered and killed. So we payed them more. They still plundered and killed. The payments, by the time Jefferson became president, accounted for nearly 20% of the federal budget. Jefferson was fed up. This is why Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Quran, so as president, he would study the Quran and learn about the enemies of the United States. It was because of his studies, that he correctly concluded that the Muslim pirates wanted to fight, because killing Christians would satisfy their jihad needs and in their eyes gain them salvation. Jefferson stopped the payments and began military action.

      And as for Jefferson and The Bible, he cut out the words of Christ, and pasted them into his own book, so he could do a side-by-side comparison of Jesus’s words and other philosophers. He grew to prefer Jesus. He read from this home-made book often. In another instance, he cut out portions of The New Testament, pasted them in another book, and had this new book published to help proselytize to Native Americans. Jefferson paid, out of his own pocket, to be a member of a Bible society, to have copies of The Bible published to give away. He also approved public funds to publish copies of The Bible. He also regularly attended church at the national Capitol Building on Sundays. The list goes on…

    2. Leena,
      It’s actually “you’re” not “your.” It’s a contraction of the words you and are. Also, instead of “an” you would want to say “a.” This is because the phrase “stupid ***” starts with a consonant. Your welcome. Just kidding, you’re welcome!

  8. Thank you for this information. I appreciate the time you have spent researching and informing us about this important subject. I also appreciate the respectful way you respond to people who are rude and misinformed.

  9. Some people think the 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to states. I’m not one of them, but what do you say to those people who might say, Hugo Black was just enforcing the 14th amendment by applying the religious clauses to state governments.

    1. Hi Jesse, thanks for reading and thanks for this comment.

      Here is my response to those people.

      The idea that the 14th amendment applies the Bill of Rights to state governments is known as the doctrine of incorporation. But, the 14th Amendment does not explicitly do this. The courts have used two words of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states: due process.

      The Bill of Rights when ratified, only restricted the federal government. States, if they wished, could legally form their own state-wide religion. States could also limit press. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, and was meant to aid reconstruction after the civil war, and clearly extend protection and already written rights to newly freed slaves.

      The doctrine of incorporation was not established by the 14th Amendment, but by the courts. The courts have used the phrase “due process” in the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to state governments as well. But they didn’t do this all at once. It happened in increments. And it created a mess in the legal system of all governments. Still does actually.

      Since the 14th Amendment does not explicitly apply the Bill of Rights to the states, nor does it say which of the rights in the Bill of Rights is extended to the states, the court has taken upon itself to determine this. Not by following precedent, original intent, or the will of the people, but by legislating from the bench. Guess who abused the 14th Amendment and took over the Bill of Rights jurisdiction? Hugo Black.

      The 14th Amendment, although needed, is poorly written. It is the most judicially abused amendment. I don’t have time to get into all the arguments and details, but relying on the court to settle such a HUGE issue concerning the Bill of Rights is anti-constitutional and anti-republicanism. Applying the Bill of Rights to state governments needs to come from an amendment that specifically and explicitly does so. Hugo Black, in multiple judicial dictates, took it upon himself to bypass the amendment process of The Constitution. What a guy. And, since the supreme court established the doctrine of incorporation, they can take it away as well. What a mess that will be. We need to amend The Constitution.

      Even though I don’t agree that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to states, lets go down the logic-path of the doctrine of incorporation. If the 1st Amendment also limits the state governments, all that Hugo Black should have done was replace the word “congress” in the 1st Amendment with “Federal, state, and local legislatures”. That’s all. So the 1st Amendment would read: “Federal, state, and local legislatures shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” All the principles behind the 1st Amendment are still intact, just applicable to all governments, not just the federal government.

      But Hugo Black didn’t do this. He changed the entire meaning and the principles of the religious clauses. He didn’t do it for the doctrine of incorporation. He did it because he was hostile to religion. What a guy.

      1. Right! Precisely! Thank you!

        The doctrine of incorporation has always bugged me. What rights should be applied to the states? Which clauses in the Bill of Rights would apply to the states? Which should apply to the federal government? Which should apply to both? Does the doctrine of incorporation mean that states can’t establish their own state religion? Are the states responsible for enforcing these rights,, or the feds? A combination of both? Okay, which ones for which governments? Which courts handle violations?

        What a mess.

        Yup, I agree, we need a specific amendment that precisely apply certain limitations and rights from the Bill of Rights to the states. The court has no business doing this in a republic. They have turned it into an oligarchy.

        It frustrates me that freedom from religion supporters ignore the phrase “make no law” in the 1st amendment. Even if the 1st amendment now applies to the state governments, the phrase “make no law” isn’t erased. A school initiating a prayer is not making a law.

        Words are meaningless to those people.

        1. Oh man, I cannot believe I forgot this point. I would also tell these people that Hugo Black didn’t cite the 14th Amendment in Engel v. Vitale. This was his landmark judicial dictate that re-defined the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment. He cited zero precedents to support his dictate. He and his other unelected cohorts unilaterally established a new national policy and bypassed the legislative branch and the amendment process. He didn’t even do it under the guise of the doctrine of incorporation. Zero precedents. New law. New national policy. Never cited the 14th amendment in this particular judicial bowel movement. What a guy.

  10. Yes!!!! Thank you!!!!

    My son’s school banned him from bringing his Bible to school. He was just reading it during free reading time. Public school. I cited the 1st Amendment to them, but like you said, they didn’t care. I’m going to love showing them section 9524 of the ESEA.

    Thank you so much for this valuable info.

    Hugo Black sounds like a tool.

    1. Hi Tina, thank you for reading and for commenting.

      I would do it in writing, via email. Email the teacher and the school admins. CC all of them. CC all the district admins too. All on the same email. My experience has taught me that being as kind, understanding, and diplomatic as possible in situations like this will produce better results in the long run. Most admins are very quick to comply with federal rules when they are made aware of them. I’m willing to bet that shortly after you send the email to all those people, it will be followed up by a district wide memo educating all employees of section 9524.

      Let us know how it goes.

  11. Might be a dumb question, but what about middle school, junior high school, and high school. All I see is elementary schools and secondary schools mentioned in the act.

    1. Hi Monica, thanks for the question.

      I was going to mention this in the article, but I stupidly forgot. Secondary Schools in the act refer to all schools between elementary level and college level. Junior high schools, middle schools, and high schools are considered secondary schools.

      Thanks for reading!

  12. Thomas Jefferson hated clergy. You are a brainwashed idiot!

    Bernie Sanders 2020!
    Bernie Sanders 2020!
    Bernie Sanders 2020!
    Bernie Sanders 2020!
    Bernie Sanders 2020!
    Bernie Sanders 2020!
    Bernie Sanders 2020!
    Bernie Sanders 2020!

    1. Chelsea, Jefferson didn’t hate clergy. He distrusted them. And not all clergy, but a certain group of clergy from a certain sect, because they were nasty to him during the election. They spread all sorts of propaganda and lies about him like, “If Jefferson becomes president, he is going to outlaw the bible.”

  13. Thanks for posting this information. Good to know. I’m going to encourage my kidos to bring their bible to school.

  14. If the 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to the states, along with the original principles behind the bill of rights, then students should have a hell of a lot more religious rights than the supreme court currently allows. All state gun laws should be null and void too. “Shall not be infringed” doesn’t allow any wiggle room. The doctrine of incorporation is a constitutional mess created by the egomaniac Hugo Black. He is on the top five list of the most anti-constitutional anti-liberty anti-religious supreme court justices.

    Students actually have total religious freedom, because this right actually does come from God. But as you noted, we have to work with what we got, and most of the others in the country think the supreme court is the end all and be all.

    1. Hi Ryan,

      I agree, the doctrine of incorporation has created a mess. The courts have cherry-picked certain elements of the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states, and have cherry-picked other elements and principles to ignore. All to support their personal agenda. Future judges may alter the doctrine. Absolutely neurotic. We didn’t vote for this. These judges have not been jurists, but dictatorial unelected oligarchs.

      I’ve heard that there is a sea change in the judicial branch, but I still think its high time that congress starts impeaching any judge who tries to legislate from the bench. Don’t screw around with legislative power that is only enumerated to congress.

  15. “Bless his heart.” Hahahaha.

    My mom taught me that this is the southern baptist way of saying “Go to hell.”

    Right on, right on.

    Our republic cannot endure if we are not a religious and moral people. I guess Hugo Black, or that which was influencing him, wanted to destroy our republic.

  16. The incorporation doctrine is one of the most anti-constitutional turds that the judicial branch has ever created. I have nothing good to say about Hugo Black, so I won’t say anything about him.

    The doctrine of incorporation needs to go. If The Bill of Rights were applied to the states by the 14th amendment (which isn’t reality), then the 2nd amendment applies to the states as the amendment is written. Why then, do we have multiple gun laws of both federal and state governments. Some of which contradict each other. That is only one example of how the doctrine of incorporation has created a legal, judicial, and constitutional quagmire. The supreme court and the rest of the courts didn’t think this through before they laid this steaming turd on us. Thanks Hugo Black. Bless your heart.

  17. This knowledge made me smile. With pleasure.

    When you present Hugo Black’s molestation of the 1st Amendment the way you did, it perfectly illustrates how absurd his judicial “opinion” was. The northwest ordinance clearly shows that the founding fathers were fine with religion, because they stated that religion was necessary for schools to prosper. Black was either ignorant, or arrogant. I suspect the latter.

    Great info about the rights the supreme court currently allows.
    I’m going to type this 10 times so it will sink into my memory.

    Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

  18. Holy crap. . .

    Hugo Black, a stooge who was not elected, changed the meaning of the first amendment? And without precedent? Why did he get away with this?

    1. Hi Jerry, thanks for the question.

      Some citizens were quite upset with Hugo Black and his cohorts. Some demanded action by the legislature and by the executive. But Kennedy was too busy with drastic world events. 1962 was a very tumultuous year, and Kennedy had other priorities which were of more immediate importance. There is some evidence that Kennedy wanted to do something about it, but shortly after Hugo Black’s middle finger to God in 1962, Kennedy, and the country, had to deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis and the aftermath. And, of course, Kennedy was eventually assassinated. His successor, LBJ, could not have cared less about religious freedom in schools. The rest of the decade was… not so great. Vietnam, civil rights, riots, more assassinations, the loss of three U.S. astronauts, the cold war, the list goes on. The only good thing of the 60’s that immediately comes to my mind is the Apollo moon landing. With everything going on, the country could not muster the political will to do anything about it, even though most of the country disagreed with Hugo Black.

      Also, several citizens incorrectly viewed the supreme court as the ultimate authority. And several were also apathetic.

      The only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. This unfortunately was the case back then.

  19. Bless his heart. lol! My grandmammy always said this when she heavily disliked someone but didn’t want to be rude by saying such. I could hear her voice as I read your article. lol.

    I am going to see if I can talk my daughter into forming a Bible club at school. The school has other clubs, so I assume that means the school must allow a religious club as well. Correct?

  20. Religion is for brainwashed pawns. And the founders hated relgion. This is why they banned religious tests in the constitution.

    1. Hi Richard, thanks for reading and for taking your time to comment.

      The “no religious test” clause of Article VI does not mean the framers wanted a secular nation or that the framers were hostile to religion. They merely didn’t want a test at the federal level, since they felt religion wasn’t under federal jurisdiction. They also feared that having a religious test at the federal level would supersede already existing religious tests in state constitutions. This is made evident by reading the notes taken at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Many of these individuals who supported the Article VI religious test ban were responsible for pro-religious test wording in state constitutions.

      Here is a religious test of the Pennsylvania Constitution:

      “And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

      I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.”

      Another state constitution required state officials to be Protestant.

      And, although this doesn’t have to do with religious tests, I want to quote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which were used to form The Declaration of Independence and later The Bill of Rights:

      “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”

      Thank you.

  21. Thank yo so much for this info.

    Sounds like you have the same distrust and issues with the judicial branch as I do. Just in case you haven’t read up on it, you should look into Samuel Adams. Prior to history being raped by prejudicial “scholars,” Samuel Adams was considered to be the most fundamental for the cause of Independence and liberty which led to the Revolutionary War. One of the things that boiled his blood was the abusive and corrupt judiciary of the time. One of the reasons he became so passionate for independence.

    1. Hi Trevor,

      Thanks for your comment.

      Yes, I know Samuel Adams. Quite well. My favorite founding father. The middle name of one of my sons is Samuel, after Samuel Adams. One of my all-time favorite biographies is “Samuel Adams: A Life” by Ira Stoll.

      I consider Samuel Adams and I to be brothers in Christ, and brothers in liberty.

      And yep, I have an extremely low opinion of the current state of our judiciary. In case you haven’t read them, I wrote a four part series about common myths about our judiciary.
      Part 1
      Part 2
      Part 3
      Part 4

  22. You stupid hypocritical christians.

    Christians have killed millions.
    Christians have started wars.
    Christians lie all the time.
    Christians whore around.
    I have had business dealings with incredibly dishonest and unethical christian businessmen. Christians are always looking down their nose at me and others. Always judging others. They hate anyone who doesn’t subscribe precisely to their stupid religious views. They pretend to know and love the bible but never read it or follow the words of Jesus. My christian neighbor urinated on my front porch just because I had asked him to keep his party quiet after 11pm. Christianity and religion are worthless and produce scum. Christianity doesn’t work and is false. What do you say to that?

    1. Hi Dayton,

      Thank you for reading and for taking time to comment.

      I am truly sorry, but I cannot continue a discussion with you because I am unable to accept your premise.

      The truth and foundation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ does not hinge on the behavior of Christians.

      Thank you.

  23. Blehck!!! Don’t even get me started on the doctrine of incorporation. Too late . . .

    There are many in the legal community/profession, myself included, that want nothing more than to kill the doctrine of incorporation. This doctrine has allowed so many court justices to turn into dictators with constantly changing opinions. The doctrine of incorporation is a mockery of constitutionalism. It is a mockery of jurisprudence. It is a mockery of good law. Unless our legislative branch does something about it, or we amend The Constitution, this doctrine is going to continue to cause swings back and forth of precedents, regulations, lawsuits, legal reform, legal confusion, court constipation, etc. etc. etc. between state governments and the federal government. Unless something is done, it will destroy the whole system and everything will be federalized. Everything.

    The judges who abused the 14th Amendment and created, promoted, defended, and expanded the doctrine of incorporation deserve to go down with other tyrants, egomaniacs, and despots on the ash heap of history. They knew exactly what they were doing: changing the system without the authority to do so.

    Kyle, if you don’t have a law degree, you should seriously consider it. You appear to have a good legal mind. We need more of the liberty minded in the field. It’s not that hard if you can study and research. There are so many in the field that are in it for the status, the power, and for nefarious purposes. We need more who believe in God and liberty and who live these beliefs.

  24. What the hell are you smoking?!? Seriously!

    I cannot believe anything you say because you believe a book that says a geriatric built a boat and loaded two of every variety of every species of animal. Reason does not allow this and if you believe this book, then your brain is not functioning.

    Jefferson did not believe in a god. He was what we today call a secular humanist. You need to do more reading. Such as this quote from Jefferson which makes it clear he didn’t believe in a god.

    “Question with boldness the existence of god.”

    1. Hi Conner, thank you for reading and for commenting.

      That is one of my favorite quotes from Jefferson. And, yes, it would be rather damning, if that quote was all there was to it. Using only that seven word phrase is a form of minimalism, and blasphemes the other words of Jefferson. That seven word phrase is divorced not only from the entire sentence from which it is derived, but also from a rather large section of a letter from which it originates.

      Jefferson, as made clear in many of his complex writings, believed in God. He thought the existence of God was so self evident, it can be realized by an examination of God’s creations:

      “…when we take a view of the universe; in it’s parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to percieve and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it’s composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their courses by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, each perfectly organized whether as insect, man or mammoth; it is impossible not to believe, that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator…”

      As far as the quote you abused, it comes from a letter Jeferson wrote to his nephew Peter Carr. Peter was like a son to Jefferson, as Peter’s father (Jefferson’s brother-in-law and friend) died when Peter was young. As Peter began a life-changing and prestigious education, he and Jefferson began writing back and forth. In the letter in which I have referred, Jefferson counsels his nephew on four subjects: Italian, Spanish, moral philosophy, and religion.

      In the section of the letter regarding his religious counsel, Jefferson is clearly instructing Peter Carr in apologetics. Apologetics means to speak in defense of something. To effectively advocate for something. Thomas Jefferson, in instructing his nephew in apologetics, felt his nephew was ready to not just know what he (Peter) believed, but also why he believed it, and to be ready to defend his beliefs. Peter believed in God and subscribed to Christianity, and Jefferson, in this letter, instructed Peter to break down all of his beliefs, study opposing opinions, and mount a solid defense of his beliefs. Other Christians of the time advocated for apologetics as well. Other founding fathers encouraged their children in apologetics. It was a common instructional technique. And one that came from the New Testament (1 Peter 3:15).

      Before I get to the entire portion of the letter which deals with Jefferson’s counsel of religious matters and instructs Peter in the common Christian practice of apologetics, I want to quote a portion from the section of the letter which dealt with moral philosophy. In this quote, Jefferson makes it evident that he believes in God, and that He created us, and that He gave us a conscience.

      “He Who made us would have been a pitiful bungler if He had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science…. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man, as his leg or arm.”

      Jefferson believed in God.

      Here is the religious portion, in full, of the Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr in 1787:

      Religion. Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, and the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand, shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because if there be One, He must more approve the homage of reason than that of blind- folded fear. You will naturally examine first the religion of your own country. Read the Bible then, as you would Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature, you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy and Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature does not weigh against them. But those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature must be examined with more care and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions [claims] of the writer to inspiration from God. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded and whether that evidence is so strong as that its false- hood would be more improbable than a change of the laws of nature in the case he relates. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still several hours. ‘Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus, we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension [claim] is entitled to your inquiry because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis, as the earth does, should have stopped, should not, by that sudden stoppage, have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time have resumed its revolution, and that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth’s motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities? You will next read the New Testament. It is the history of personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretentious. 1. Of those who say He was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of nature at will, and ascended bodily into Heaven; and 2. Of those who say he was a man, of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to Divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offense by whipping, and the second by exile or death. These questions are examined in the books I have mentioned under the head of religion and several others. They will assist you in your inquiries, but keep your reason firmly on the watch in reading them all. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of these which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under His eye and that He approves of you will be a vast additional incitement. If that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a God, you will be comforted by a belief of His aid and love. In fine, I repeat you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything because any other person or description of persons have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by Heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision. I forgot to observe when speaking of the New Testament that you should read all the histories of Christ, as well of those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided for us to be pseudo-evangelists, as those they named Evangelists, because these pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiration as much as the others, and you are to judge their pretensions by your own reason and not by the reason of those ecclesiastics. Most of these are lost. There are some, however, still extant, collected by Fabricius, which I will endeavor to get and send you.

  25. I am stunned. I had always thought that everything related to religion was banned at school. Great info.

  26. What a dummy. They didn’t want a national religion because they didn’t like religion at all. No other reason.

  27. It is abusive to force a child to read a book that promotes genocide, chauvinism, gang rape, murder, incest, prostitution, child sacrifice, infanticide, magic walking sticks, genital mutilation, etc.

    I think the most disturbing thing is from Jesus himself. He goes to pick figs from a fig tree, but it isn’t fig season so of course there are no figs. Jesus is so vindictive and petty, he cursed the fig tree, killing it. Jesus kills a living thing, just because the fruit it produced was out of season. No wonder christians murdered millions during the crusades.

    The Bible should be banned for a very good reason, it is abusive.

  28. How sad that we have to have the courts tell our students what they are allowed to do in schools. The department of education is unconstitutional anyways and why we give it any credence is beyond me.

  29. In the 19th century the Bible was the only text book used in several public schools across the country. Citizens were not only fine with it, they wanted it. Government was fine with it too. Yet historians want to rewrite history to show that back then everyone hated religion and and that freedom from religion was a principle of our country’s formation. Horse crap!

  30. What Hugo Black did to Jefferson’s letter to the Danburys is unconscionable and evil. Nothing but evil. He raped the truth for his own satisfaction and self importance.

  31. Ugh.

    These rights are from God, and our students have many more rights than what the supreme court will admit. And you are totally correct, the supremes think they are the ones who grant the religious rights. They think they can take them away.

    No one other than God can tell a child of God how or when he or she can worship. No one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.