Anyone who believes the Constitution of the United States dictates so-called "separation of church and state" has some very difficult questions to answer.

• Why were prayer and bible study not only permitted but also encouraged from the very founding of our nation?

• If our founding fathers intended godless public institutions, why did they establish just the opposite?

• Why do our cities carry names the likes of Los Angeles, Corpus Christi, St. Paul, and San Francisco? 

• The Bill of Rights, consisting of the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, was ratified in 1791. If the first amendment was intended to ban prayer from public schools, how come those who wrote and ratified it failed to implement it that way?

Remember, the Judiciary isn't supposed to rule on whether something is a good idea, bad idea, or outdated concept. The Constitution lives and breathes through its "elastic clause," the amendment process. The nomination/ratification process involves consensus from a dominant slice of America -- not the whim of nine justices huddled in a room.

Judea/Christian Heritage

A tour of Washington D.C. demonstrates that rewriters of our history can't whitewash what's etched in stone. Our national monuments, such as the memorials to Lincoln and Washington, are inscribed with biblical passages. This is in the same spirit of worship that causes minting of our coins with "In God we trust."

Our founders venerated God, publicly. The idea of a constitutional mandate of "separation of church and state" is a cruel hoax. It is based solely on an out-of-context quotation of a Thomas Jefferson letter written in 1801. The "wall of separation" Jefferson's letter mentioned was meant to keep the state out of church business. But even if there was a sense of reciprocity in Jefferson's thinking, it was only a letter – not a resolution, nor a decree, nor a court order, nor anything more than his personal views.

No State Denominationn
Some may disdain the idea of prayer in school, but our founding fathers prescribed it. What they did not like – and the object of Jefferson's letter – was the threat of a state-sponsored denomination. The tyranny of government-run religion was a situation most fled England to escape.

Since bible study was not a recent phenomenon when the Supreme Court banished it in the early 1960s, it defies belief how it could be termed "unconstitutional." You mean, it took us 160 years to correct the oversight of those who wrote the constitution?

But we can't be obligated to what some guys wrote centuries ago! Times change!

Envisioning this was precisely the reason for the constitution's elastic clause and the purpose of an amendment process.

What's unconscionable if not unconstitutional are court decisions – Supreme or not – that blatantly circumvent, distort, and violate the foundational principles of "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."