Liberal courts at fault in prayer debate

April 30, 2006

VALLEY VOICES/Larry Wood

I read with interest Mr. Morley's piece objecting to the informal, unsanctioned invocation that has been practiced by the Wasilla Planning Commission members.

While very well stated, Mr. Morley, as do too many, seems to base his objections upon a false premise. There is no separation of church and state in the First Amendment in the manner implied by Mr. Morley. There is no restriction on the public reference to God or to any invocation of God by public employees, appointees, etc.

If there is, I challenge Mr. Morley to please produce his proof.

Twice now, the federal District Appellate Court has rejected the ACLU's arguments regarding alleged violations of the fictional separation of church and state regarding the display of the decalogue in public buildings in Kentucky. Why has this federal court rejected the ACLU's arguments that the display of the Ten Commandments allegedly violates the separation of church and state?

Why? There is no such thing.

Separation of church and state as intended in the Constitution was meant to prevent government from establishing a Church of the United States, as Henry VIII established the Church of England so that he could divorce to remarry. That is all that is contained in the First Amendment regarding this matter.

In no manner form or way, does the First Amendment prevent or restrict individuals in government service from acknowledging in a public manner God's role in our affairs, their belief in God, or giving their thanks to God for his mercy and justice in the form of public prayer. Nor does it restrict them from ending their request for God's wisdom and influence on their business by invoking Christ's intercession.

The liberal agenda is to make us believe that our Constitution is pliable. That it can change to reflect the mores and attitudes of society. That what it plainly says can be perverted to mean something that was not the original intent.

No, it cannot. It merely states what it states and that is all. It means what it says, and nothing more. Plain English. No penumbras, just plain English.

Stan Tucker, God bless him and his, is not trying to impose or otherwise cause the city of Wasilla to sanction a city-imposed religion or religious view. I believe the invocation is to ask for guidance, not to request conversion.

As in any free society, Mr. Morley and his ilk have at their behest freedom to sit politely and not partake in the voluntary invocation. Or, to temporarily remove himself from the room if the affair is so objectionable. He can even put ear plugs in his ears if he wants. That is his right, just as it is the right of those who wish to pray and to seek God's intercession into their affairs to ask such before conducting the people's business.

Mr. Morley should be thankful for Stan Tucker and men like him. To seek God's wisdom is an act of humility and acknowledges our imperfection. It is not an act of compulsion nor arrogance.

Liberal courts and political correctness ignore the law. The Constitution only guarantees what it says. For that, I thank God - and George Washington and all the rest who made the greatest challenge in history to an imperial power and won.

Palmer resident Larry Wood's Valley Voices guest opinion column appears every four weeks.