Two Horrendous Rulings Finally Corrected by Robert Socha

The historic overturning of the horrific ruling that ended the lives of over 60,000,000 Americans has overshadowed another necessary correction. The Dobbs ruling in favor of a football coach who publicly prayed after a game is also monumentally important. It helps to overcome the erroneous interpretation that the first amendment erected an impenetrable wall of separation between church and state, as Justice Hugo Black wrote in his majority opinion in 1947.

Since this ruling, various rulings have deleteriously affected these United States. Notably the terrible 1962 and 1963 rulings against prayer and the public reading of Scripture. The mistaken notion that “separation of church and state” is a constitutional mandate has clouded the judgment of many. People will even scream the phrase in a public meeting when an elected official speaks their faith, usually Christian, while in session. And why do most fights against religion focus on that One which espouses salvation by faith in Christ alone?

It is because the old diluter still beguiles. He whispers the original lie, “if you eat of that tree, you won’t surely die.” And just as Eve listened to that subterfuge over the voice of the Lord, our culture has bought into the lie that pure religion is detrimental to society, hook, line, and sinker, willing to speak damnable things to defend their ignorance.

The founding fathers wrote the constitution for moral and virtuous people. Because of man’s inability to exercise self-control, laws and ordinances must exist to keep society civil and organized. The courts would have you believe that the constitution requires the Federal government to restrict those vestiges of virtue found in Christian Scripture and tradition on the national level. Nothing could be more opposite to the original intention!

The argument that a man cannot pray after a football game because he is the coach and is responsible for a constitutional violation is fallacious, illogical, and a non-sequitur.

Additionally, the constitution’s chains are limited to the Federal Government. Anything not specifically delineated in its charter reverts to the states or the people. The federal government is restricted from establishing a religion, yes, but that does not mean elected officials cannot proclaim a day of prayer and fasting in the Christian tradition. It does not mean that Alabama cannot have a display of the Ten Commandments on the steps of the courthouse. And it definitely does not mean that a man, even a coach hired by the state, cannot publicly pray to God as known through the Holy Bible before, during, or after a sporting event.

I do not understand the vitriol towards Christianity because my eyes have been opened, and I’ve turned from darkness to light. I do understand it from the perspective of accountability. Most men do not want to be held accountable for their increasingly evil deeds and become more and more violent when that darkness is exposed.

When a man humbles himself to publicly pray and acknowledge that Supreme Being, it quite uncomfortably tends to expose the darkness in a man’s soul. Instead of confronting the darkness to overcome it, they prefer to restrict the one shining a light in dark places. These restrictions have happened from time immemorial and will continue until He comes again in glory.

In the meantime, we should celebrate this judicial victory and encourage our faith, singing to one another in songs and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in our hearts to the Lord. How our judiciary has been transformed over the past five years is no small thing. Hopefully, they will continue overturning egregious rulings, allowing we the people to walk a little freer.