The Indiana House Education Committee this past week passed a bill related to school prayer on a vote of 10-2.
Essentially, it reaffirms students’ rights to pray aloud in Indiana schools. The bill was authored by Democratic State Rep. John Bartlett.
He said his bill would give students the opportunity to pray – not mandate it.
The bill also encourages high schools to offer classes on religions of the world and affirms students' rights to wear religious clothing or jewelry.
Supporters say school administrators – wary of lawsuits – too quickly object to public affirmations of faith in schools. They say the bill sends a strong message about students’ First Amendment rights.
Opponents say students' freedom of religion is already acknowledged in schools and the bill is unnecessary.
When I saw a story about this on Associated Press, it reminded me of just how bizarre the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution has become.
The establishment of religious freedom or religious rights was a principal reason  for the American Revolution.
That’s why the Establishment Clause is in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
You know, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
I get what the founders  were trying to accomplish. They didn’t want a government-sanctioned Church of England situation in their newly created sovereign nation.
What I don’t get is how far flung the interpretation has become. Courts have ruled that the Establishment Clause prohibits all sorts of things – like nativity scenes on government property.
In 1962, the Supreme Court said it didn't matter if prayer was voluntary, students could no longer pray together in school.
In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed on a wall in a school.
In 1985, the moment of silence was forbidden in classrooms.
In 1992, it was ruled that a rabbi broke the law by offering a prayer at a high school graduation.
In 1995, a Nazi swastika was ruled a protected symbol on public property. That same year, it was ruled that a cross could not be included in a group of symbols on a city seal.
In 1997, a cross that stood for 70 years at a park in San Francisco was ordered to be taken down.
In Marion, the ACLU forced the Ten Commandments to be taken out of the Grant County courthouse.
The post office has removed Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah banners.
In Washington, D.C., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission tried to say that on the job, co-workers can't talk to each other about their faith.
In Galveston, Texas, a federal judge threatened to arrest anyone who said the word "Jesus" at a high school graduation.
There are lots more of these types of rulings and all of them fly in the face of logic. The Establishment Clause precludes all these things? Really? This was the founders’ intent?
You don’t even have to guess at their intent. There are volumes written about their intent. It’s clear.
Wasn’t it James Madison who said, "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. This subject is, for the honor of America, perfectly free and unshackled. The government has no jurisdiction over it."
The founders wanted religion to be practiced freely and openly without fear of government intervention. And they would scoff at the notion that a Ten Commandments monument placed anywhere could be ruled unconstitutional.
You don’t need to read anything. Just visit Washington, D.C.
Go to Supreme Court building

. There you will see a view of Moses with the Ten Commandments.
As you enter the Supreme Court, the doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on them.
Above where the justices sit there is a display of the Ten Commandments.
If the early architects of our nation didn’t intend for there to be religious symbols on government property, why did they sprinkle government property with religious symbols?
If you want to argue that a religious symbol on government property is unconstitutional, you can't seriously argue the founders wanted it that way. They clearly didn’t.
Your argument is that the founders were wrong and the U.S. Constitution is a fairly meaningless, outdated document.