AlbqOwl said:
If you had actually read my post, you would know that I am quite aware that we live in a republic with a representative government. That representative government constitutes the majority or minority opinion of the people whether at the federal or local level. If the majority votes for a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day, that should stand. If the majority vote to keep 'under God' in the Pledge, that should stand.
Fortunately, the court disagrees with you.
"Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend on the succession of monarchs." - Justice Black, majority opinion, Engel v. Vitale
"Majority vote" is NOT a license to override the protections of the constitution.
There is nothing coercive about a patriotic Pledge that no person, child or adult, is required to say and for which there is no consequence or reward for saying or not saying it. That some do not like it is irrelevent. The child whose faith is literal Creationism is nevertheless subjected to a mandatory study of Darwin and may feel quite coerced, but it is perfectly legal that he be subjected to the same material everybody else is. How he feels about it, howver, is irrelevent because there is no requirement to believe it.
Again, the court disagrees with you:
"Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Engel v. Vitale
The court held that whether or not students were individually required to recite it, the fact that the local gov. mandated that the school recite it had an unconstitutional, coercive effect on the students.
In addition:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this:
Neither a state nor the Federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to each of practice religion."
Reynolds v. Supra
As defined by the courts, any invocation of the word "God" in the form of an honorary label in the public schools is a religious activity. As Engel v. Vitale stated, the fact that teachers are required to recite this prayer is an instance of tax monies being levied to support religion.
The idea that the will of the people re this issue should not prevail is preposterous.
The idea that the will of the people should be superior to the Constitution is even more preposterous.