by Elton Gahr

Created on: February 17, 2009   Last Updated: April 28, 2009

The idea of simple majority rule is something that makes e a little uncomfortable, yet there is something even more uncomfortable about the idea of a vocal majority hanging laws that are controlled by the use of lawsuits. This question becomes even more touchy when it comes to the idea of religion and our children.

No one likes the idea of someone stilling religious beliefs in our children that we do not agree with. The question of a voluntary moment of silence is not a question of any religious indoctrination because there is nothing innately religious about the concept of a moment of prayer and, because it is not a religious act there is no reason that we need to make it voluntary.

But, that alone doesn't mean that the choice shouldn't be a voluntary one. What is the point of forcing children to have a silent moment of reflection at the beginning of the day. Why not simply make it a voluntary choice? The answer is a simple one. You cannot have a moment of silence in a classroom unless everyone is silent. If this were a moment of prayer, as the fear is, then this true silence wouldn't be necessary, but silent reflection can be interrupted by a single voice, and more importantly those who are pushing this lawsuit know that.

This lawsuit isn't about children having a few moments of silence at the beginning of the school day. This is a political attack and power grab by a vocal minority and anyone who states that this is an attempt to force young children to think in a specific religious way is complicit in that deception.

It is this issue of an overzealous judiciary that is far more dangerous at this time than the establishment of religion, but it is very evident in the intentional misreading of the united states constitution by trained judges.

The most important point in this is that the law which was passed was a law passed by a state legislator. This is important because any legal scholar will tell you that the constitution did not intend for this law to limit the right to have state religions only a federal religion. That is why it is not unconstitutional for Utah to have a state religion. Even more important in the understanding of this though is the knowledge that at the time that the freedom of religion clause was passed there were several state religions and it was those states that insisted on the law that be passed in an attempt to stop exactly what the judiciary has done.

And that is the biggest irony. The very point of the freedom of in the united States constitution was to ensure that states could have religious laws yet that right has been taken away not through a constitutional amendment process but by judges who believe they know better than anyone else.

Learn more about this author, Elton Gahr.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.