I would like to hear how teacher led prayer in public schools is constitutional

[goldcatt]

Please. Sounds like a lotta emanatin' and penumbrafyin' if you axe me.

It's that judicial activism is what it is.

It's those pesky privileges and immunities of citizenship. Whaddaya gonna do?

That's a euphonious little phrase, but what the hell does it mean? Before the 14th there were no privileges or immunities of citizenship?

More like privileges and immunities of being a damn judge all your freakin life and striking down anything you don't like. Some of those guys should have found honest work a loooong time ago.

Privileges and immunities of citizenship? They always existed. The problem being before the 14th citizens were basically citizens of their States first, the US second. And the First was originally written to apply only to Congress, not the States. See the problem here? The States could infringe on speech, or religion, or protection from search and seizure, or due process requirements, any other Federal protection. It simply didn't apply to them.

The entire purpose of the citizenship clause of the 14th isn't actually to create anchor babies. It's to make darn sure citizens are US citizens first, so that anybody living in any State is guaranteed the privileges and immunities - basically protections and rights - enjoyed by all citizens throught the nation. Which is the rationale behind incorporation.

Which brings us back to the First applying to the schools. See how it all fits together?

 

[ConHog]

i don't want any teacher of today saying a prayer in school and forcing kids to join in, BUT where in the first amendment, does it say this is unconstitutional?

The word "Establishment". There have been many definitions of Establishment over time, but they all center around exactly what we're talking about here with teacher-led prayer: government forcing a particular religion or religious observance on citizens irrespective of their actual beliefs.

It's not quite the same as telling people, for example, they must pretend to be Christian to be a full citizen. But it's still forcing students to sit through a religious observance whether they believe in it or not, backed by the power of the State. It's that "force" element that matters.

If it's voluntary, knock your socks off.

Im still waiting for a link to s ingle event where any student was forced to pray.

 

[ConHog]

I think we have bigger problems to worry about in our schools.

Didn't really start having those problems until around the time they took prayer out of schools.

Anybody can pray any time in any school provided (1) it does not disrupt the educational process, and (2) it does not coerce or infringe on others.

Prayer, thus, was never taken out of schools.

you're full of crap. i posted links to lawsuits where no one who was outside of the group was affected but some jack ass sued anyway.

 

[LuckyDan]

It's those pesky privileges and immunities of citizenship. Whaddaya gonna do?

That's a euphonious little phrase, but what the hell does it mean? Before the 14th there were no privileges or immunities of citizenship?

More like privileges and immunities of being a damn judge all your freakin life and striking down anything you don't like. Some of those guys should have found honest work a loooong time ago.

Privileges and immunities of citizenship? They always existed. The problem being before the 14th citizens were basically citizens of their States first, the US second. And the First was originally written to apply only to Congress, not the States. See the problem here? The States could infringe on speech, or religion, or protection from search and seizure, or due process requirements, any other Federal protection. It simply didn't apply to them.

The entire purpose of the citizenship clause of the 14th isn't actually to create anchor babies. It's to make darn sure citizens are US citizens first, so that anybody living in any State is guaranteed the privileges and immunities - basically protections and rights - enjoyed by all citizens throught the nation. Which is the rationale behind incorporation.

Which brings us back to the First applying to the schools. See how it all fits together?

The lack of specificity in that phrase has been used to enlarge the scope of national government. Other rights were specified in the various amendments, and the courts would uphold them if they were denied you. If you wanted a right that was not specified in the Constitution, your state might grant it to you. If your state didn't, a neighboring state might. Not anymore.

See the beauty of local control? Or dare I say (gasp!) state's rights?

 

[goldcatt]

That's a euphonious little phrase, but what the hell does it mean? Before the 14th there were no privileges or immunities of citizenship?

More like privileges and immunities of being a damn judge all your freakin life and striking down anything you don't like. Some of those guys should have found honest work a loooong time ago.

Privileges and immunities of citizenship? They always existed. The problem being before the 14th citizens were basically citizens of their States first, the US second. And the First was originally written to apply only to Congress, not the States. See the problem here? The States could infringe on speech, or religion, or protection from search and seizure, or due process requirements, any other Federal protection. It simply didn't apply to them.

The entire purpose of the citizenship clause of the 14th isn't actually to create anchor babies. It's to make darn sure citizens are US citizens first, so that anybody living in any State is guaranteed the privileges and immunities - basically protections and rights - enjoyed by all citizens throught the nation. Which is the rationale behind incorporation.

Which brings us back to the First applying to the schools. See how it all fits together?

The lack of specificity in that phrase has been used to enlarge the scope of national government. Other rights were specified in the various amendments, and the courts would uphold them if they were denied you. If you wanted a right that was not specified in the Constitution, your state might grant it to you. If your state didn't, a neighboring state might. Not anymore.

See the beauty of local control? Or dare I say (gasp!) state's rights?

You forget a few little details. The first is that States Rights as Tenthers tend to champion it tend to render the Comity Clause meaningless. The second is the effect of Full Faith and Credit. The third is the Supremacy Clause. All of which are in the original Articles. They also tend to disregard the Ninth completely.

Now why would those clauses have been inserted and the Ninth proposed and ratified if the States have the power to simply shrug them off and go their own way, while maintaining the ability to pursue their own citizens from State to State for violating local restrictions on Federal privileges and immunites?

The 14th plugged a gap left by the Founders, pure and simple.

Are we off into the realm of thread hijack at this point?

 

[LuckyDan]

Privileges and immunities of citizenship? They always existed. The problem being before the 14th citizens were basically citizens of their States first, the US second. And the First was originally written to apply only to Congress, not the States. See the problem here? The States could infringe on speech, or religion, or protection from search and seizure, or due process requirements, any other Federal protection. It simply didn't apply to them.

The entire purpose of the citizenship clause of the 14th isn't actually to create anchor babies. It's to make darn sure citizens are US citizens first, so that anybody living in any State is guaranteed the privileges and immunities - basically protections and rights - enjoyed by all citizens throught the nation. Which is the rationale behind incorporation.

Which brings us back to the First applying to the schools. See how it all fits together?

The lack of specificity in that phrase has been used to enlarge the scope of national government. Other rights were specified in the various amendments, and the courts would uphold them if they were denied you. If you wanted a right that was not specified in the Constitution, your state might grant it to you. If your state didn't, a neighboring state might. Not anymore.

See the beauty of local control? Or dare I say (gasp!) state's rights?

You forget a few little details. The first is that States Rights as Tenthers tend to champion it tend to render the Comity Clause meaningless. The second is the effect of Full Faith and Credit. The third is the Supremacy Clause. All of which are in the original Articles. They also tend to disregard the Ninth completely.

Now why would those clauses have been inserted and the Ninth proposed and ratified if the States have the power to simply shrug them off and go their own way, while maintaining the ability to pursue their own citizens from State to State for violating local restrictions on Federal privileges and immunites?

The 14th plugged a gap left by the Founders, pure and simple.

Are we off into the realm of thread hijack at this point?

No, but the water is getting awfully deep for me. (This is water, isn't it?) We're still talking constitutionality of issues unspecified in the amendments, including the 14th.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your question, but could the states, prior to the 14th, shrug off the rights defined in the consitution? Deny free speech? Search and sieze unreasonably? Censor press? All of these rights were specified and limited national power, while your reading of the 14th expands it. That's my whole thing.

Wouldn't limits be helpful for questions like SSM? Instead of one national law that you may not like, you could move to state where the law is agreeable to you. Abortion might have worked out that way. Prayer in school might have.

 

[goldcatt]

The lack of specificity in that phrase has been used to enlarge the scope of national government. Other rights were specified in the various amendments, and the courts would uphold them if they were denied you. If you wanted a right that was not specified in the Constitution, your state might grant it to you. If your state didn't, a neighboring state might. Not anymore.

See the beauty of local control? Or dare I say (gasp!) state's rights?

You forget a few little details. The first is that States Rights as Tenthers tend to champion it tend to render the Comity Clause meaningless. The second is the effect of Full Faith and Credit. The third is the Supremacy Clause. All of which are in the original Articles. They also tend to disregard the Ninth completely.

Now why would those clauses have been inserted and the Ninth proposed and ratified if the States have the power to simply shrug them off and go their own way, while maintaining the ability to pursue their own citizens from State to State for violating local restrictions on Federal privileges and immunites?

The 14th plugged a gap left by the Founders, pure and simple.

Are we off into the realm of thread hijack at this point?

No, but the water is getting awfully deep for me. (This is water, isn't it?) We're still talking constitutionality of issues unspecified in the amendments, including the 14th.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your question, but could the states, prior to the 14th, shrug off the rights defined in the consitution? Deny free speech? Search and sieze unreasonably? Censor press? All of these rights were specified and limited national power, while your reading of the 14th expands it. That's my whole thing.

Wouldn't limits be helpful for questions like SSM? Instead of one national law that you may not like, you could move to state where the law is agreeable to you. Abortion might have worked out that way. Prayer in school might have.

As far as school prayer, it IS specified in the First. It falls under Establishment. We're talking about what the public school as a government agent can and cannot do, the effect on the individual is secondary, so the restrictive clause is the applicable one. There are other issues involved with an involuntary audience of minor children, but we can stick to one at a time.

Then we started talking about why the First applies to the States and local school boards, which of course is due to incorporation through the 14th.

Then you argued local control to question the validity of incorporation and the 14th, and I pointed out why there's a hole in that logic. It would render portions of the original Articles meaningless and unenforceable, and nothing was written into the Constitution to be meaningless and unenforceable.

Sound close?

As far as the States pre-14th, none of the Amendments applied to them save the 9th and 10th. So yes, they could and often did infringe on Federal privileges and immunities. Only the Federal government's hands were tied by the COTUS, the States were bound only by their own Constitutions.

Defining Federal citizenship and taking primary power over the meaning of citizenship away from the States was the biggest key to restoring the Republic and addressing the real issues in cohesion that led up to the Civil War. Citizens had to be citizens of the Republic first, which among other things secured them the protections afforded under the COTUS and restored meaning to the Comity and Supremacy Clauses.

But all of that is a tangent, really. The word you're looking for is "Establishment".

 

[LuckyDan]

You forget a few little details. The first is that States Rights as Tenthers tend to champion it tend to render the Comity Clause meaningless. The second is the effect of Full Faith and Credit. The third is the Supremacy Clause. All of which are in the original Articles. They also tend to disregard the Ninth completely.

Now why would those clauses have been inserted and the Ninth proposed and ratified if the States have the power to simply shrug them off and go their own way, while maintaining the ability to pursue their own citizens from State to State for violating local restrictions on Federal privileges and immunites?

The 14th plugged a gap left by the Founders, pure and simple.

Are we off into the realm of thread hijack at this point?

No, but the water is getting awfully deep for me. (This is water, isn't it?) We're still talking constitutionality of issues unspecified in the amendments, including the 14th.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your question, but could the states, prior to the 14th, shrug off the rights defined in the consitution? Deny free speech? Search and sieze unreasonably? Censor press? All of these rights were specified and limited national power, while your reading of the 14th expands it. That's my whole thing.

Wouldn't limits be helpful for questions like SSM? Instead of one national law that you may not like, you could move to state where the law is agreeable to you. Abortion might have worked out that way. Prayer in school might have.

As far as school prayer, it IS specified in the First. It falls under Establishment. We're talking about what the public school as a government agent can and cannot do, the effect on the individual is secondary, so the restrictive clause is the applicable one. There are other issues involved with an involuntary audience of minor children, but we can stick to one at a time.

Then we started talking about why the First applies to the States and local school boards, which of course is due to incorporation through the 14th.

Then you argued local control to question the validity of incorporation and the 14th, and I pointed out why there's a hole in that logic. It would render portions of the original Articles meaningless and unenforceable, and nothing was written into the Constitution to be meaningless and unenforceable.

Sound close?

As far as the States pre-14th, none of the Amendments applied to them save the 9th and 10th. So yes, they could and often did infringe on Federal privileges and immunities. Only the Federal government's hands were tied by the COTUS, the States were bound only by their own Constitutions.

Defining Federal citizenship and taking primary power over the meaning of citizenship away from the States was the biggest key to restoring the Republic and addressing the real issues in cohesion that led up to the Civil War. Citizens had to be citizens of the Republic first, which among other things secured them the protections afforded under the COTUS and restored meaning to the Comity and Supremacy Clauses.

But all of that is a tangent, really. The word you're looking for is "Establishment".

Well alright. Can't tell you nothing. You know everything and I'm just a big dumbass.

Seriously, thanks for taking the time with me. You've given me a lot to think about and read up on, but I'm still not convinced that a voluntary, ecumenical prayer time in a public school establishes a religion.

Thanks again.

 

[Pappadave]

Okay, I'm going to rattle some cages here. You are arguing different things. Separation of Church and State (Congress shall make no law....) Agreed, no government or any of its agencies should mandate, present, lead in prayer, etc any one religion. Notice however is does not require separation from religion, hence "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

There should be no restriction on anyone anywhere practicing their religion (including atheists). Praying, proselytzing, displaying symbols or icons of their faith, etc. Bigger problem. Our faith is individual, my fathers faith is not mine until I make it mine. We profess to believe in freedom, the right to choose. We also profess to believe and support informed choice. Of course dad has the right to educate his child and the child will (usually) choose the same beliefs, Bur is dad going to present other beliefs systems dispassionately? Where does the child get the information to make his informed choice? Isn't the child part of the community of man? Can we sit idly by if it is not education, but rather indoctrination? A religion does not belong in public schools, but a factual, dispassionate presentation of all religions does as well as discussions of non-belief. This would not only provide a basis for informed choice, but would lead to a much greater understanding of tolerance. And yes I feel it should be required of all students, public or private.

Judging by the results of the public schools they seem to want to keep their students ignorant. Far to much time is devoted to P.C. pablum, the current social theory, and, yes, indoctrination. Does the government want students to learn, or does it want to keep control? After all if we all grew up with knowledge and independence, we wouldn't need much government now would we? If we want kids to learn, let them. Lay all the information on any subject on the table, warts and all, no bias, no blame just the facts. Teach them to think logically, reason, argue, debate, talk. Make them use their minds, not lean on ours or the government. We might see a lot more interest in learning if we free their minds. Teach, don't preach. Peace, Love, and Faith. Pappadave

 

[goldcatt]

No, but the water is getting awfully deep for me. (This is water, isn't it?) We're still talking constitutionality of issues unspecified in the amendments, including the 14th.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your question, but could the states, prior to the 14th, shrug off the rights defined in the consitution? Deny free speech? Search and sieze unreasonably? Censor press? All of these rights were specified and limited national power, while your reading of the 14th expands it. That's my whole thing.

Wouldn't limits be helpful for questions like SSM? Instead of one national law that you may not like, you could move to state where the law is agreeable to you. Abortion might have worked out that way. Prayer in school might have.

As far as school prayer, it IS specified in the First. It falls under Establishment. We're talking about what the public school as a government agent can and cannot do, the effect on the individual is secondary, so the restrictive clause is the applicable one. There are other issues involved with an involuntary audience of minor children, but we can stick to one at a time.

Then we started talking about why the First applies to the States and local school boards, which of course is due to incorporation through the 14th.

Then you argued local control to question the validity of incorporation and the 14th, and I pointed out why there's a hole in that logic. It would render portions of the original Articles meaningless and unenforceable, and nothing was written into the Constitution to be meaningless and unenforceable.

Sound close?

As far as the States pre-14th, none of the Amendments applied to them save the 9th and 10th. So yes, they could and often did infringe on Federal privileges and immunities. Only the Federal government's hands were tied by the COTUS, the States were bound only by their own Constitutions.

Defining Federal citizenship and taking primary power over the meaning of citizenship away from the States was the biggest key to restoring the Republic and addressing the real issues in cohesion that led up to the Civil War. Citizens had to be citizens of the Republic first, which among other things secured them the protections afforded under the COTUS and restored meaning to the Comity and Supremacy Clauses.

But all of that is a tangent, really. The word you're looking for is "Establishment".

Well alright. Can't tell you nothing. You know everything and I'm just a big dumbass.

Seriously, thanks for taking the time with me. You've given me a lot to think about and read up on, but I'm still not convinced that a voluntary, ecumenical prayer time in a public school establishes a religion.

Thanks again.

Didn't mean to make it sound that way, sorry if it seemed like I was implying you're a dumbass. It's the wee hours here.

I'm still convinced it is establishment, but this place would suck badly if we all agreed.

Enjoyed it.

 

[Care4all]

GC, at the time of the bill of rights, an Established religion was An Established Church, such as the Church of England/Anglican....the reason they used the term AN Established Religion is because we had religions here or that they could foresee coming here, that did not use the term 'church' but used Temples, as an example....or Synagogues....or Mosques...thus the term AN Established 'Religion', the term used, meant an established 'religion' as replacement for an established church, which was very common terminology to mean a 'national; church, is what I have read on the terminology of the times...

the founding fathers DID NOT use the term Establishment (nor as a verb)....they used AN Established Religion as in AN Established Church, as in... The Church of England....a proclaimed NATIONAL church/religion...of which they wanted no part of....they wanted us all to be able to CHOOSE our church/our religion, THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM to choose, and NOT have a National religion DICTATED by law, for the whole country.....as it was in England.... this is what I have read on it....?

 

[goldcatt]

There are two different basic views on that, Care. The narrow view is what you are describing, and is based primarily on the contemporary common law of England and practices in Europe combined with certain actions in the first Congress. The broader interpretation is more akin to the Jeffersonian "wall of separation" (although the Exercise clause insures there can never be a true impermeable "wall") and is based in the intent shown in his and other Founders' writings, including those of Madison.

There were ongoing debates but no SCOTUS cases testing the meaning of Establishment until the 1940's, believe it or not. Establishment was simply undefined in any official sense. Since then there have been many cases, some of them like Lee v Weisman (1985) setting out tests for individual elements the courts look for in determining Establishment (coercion in that case), but there is still no one definition of what Establishment actually means or one bright line rule for when Establishment ends and Exercise begins. It's a list of factors that are evaluated and balanced on a case by case basis, generally showing a pattern toward the Madisonian/Jeffersonian view but the dissents show the debate is still lively.

Frustrating, isn't it?

I'll go look up some links for the landmark cases like Lee and get back to you so you can see the pattern and analysis for yourself.

 

[George Costanza]

What I'd like to know is why I, a liberal, am arguing for less government control over parents' and individual rights and you, a conservative, are arguing for more? What principle is at stake here for you that the usual conservative belief in less government power over the individual is superseded in the case of organized prayer?

Conservatives scream about "smaller government" when it suits their purposes, i.e., lower taxes, less regulation of big business, etc. When, however, it comes to imposing their will over others in areas where to do so is important to them, (abortion issues, prayer in public schools, "tort reform," etc.), then, all of a sudden, they are looking up at the sky and whistling when the subject of "big government" is brought up.

 

[goldcatt]

The first case from 1947, Everson v Board of Education:
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

The case that "outlawed" teacher-led school prayer, Engel v Vitale (1962):
Engel v. Vitale

Lee v Weisman (1985)
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

Another big one concerning moments of silence, Wallace v Jaffree (1992)
Wallace v. Jaffree

And the last concerning student led prayer using school facilities, Santa Fe v Doe (2000)
SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE

Pay attention to both the majority opinions and the dissents, you'll see the pattern laid out of what both sides do agree on, where they differ and what pattern they use in their analysis. From that you can get as much of an idea as anybody has of what exactly "Establishment" means.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't think optional, teacher-led prayer, after school or during lunch or something like that is a Constitutional problem, personally.

The fascist left attempts to eliminate our freedoms by abusing the constitution on a regular basis.

For example, they claimed it is "unconstitutional" to protest the building of a mosque at Ground Zero.

 

[Care4all]

I don't think optional, teacher-led prayer, after school or during lunch or something like that is a Constitutional problem, personally.

The fascist left attempts to eliminate our freedoms by abusing the constitution on a regular basis.

For example, they claimed it is "unconstitutional" to protest the building of a mosque at Ground Zero.

LINK?

I have seen NO LIBERALS say it was unconstitutional to protest the building of the Muslim community center?

 

[midcan5]

"Liberalism’s enemy, is not religion but religious oppression and its friend is not skepticism but freedom, including religious freedom." Alan Wolfe


Life in the big city creates all kinds of issues when religion is introduced into school. There must be a few teachers out there who would comment on this complex issue. Bring any religion into school and the parents will all go crazy or crazier. Actually most any topic will generate trouble. Bring in a classic book reading club and the nuts will go nuts. And the teachers tell me the worst offenders and complainers are the religious themselves who want to control the ideas their little ones are supposedly learning. Home is the place for religion, why that isn't clear after all this time is beyond sense.


"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance." Eric Hoffer

 

[Care4all]

The first case from 1947, Everson v Board of Education:
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

The case that "outlawed" teacher-led school prayer, Engel v Vitale (1962):
Engel v. Vitale

Lee v Weisman (1985)
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

Another big one concerning moments of silence, Wallace v Jaffree (1992)
Wallace v. Jaffree

And the last concerning student led prayer using school facilities, Santa Fe v Doe (2000)
SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE

Pay attention to both the majority opinions and the dissents, you'll see the pattern laid out of what both sides do agree on, where they differ and what pattern they use in their analysis. From that you can get as much of an idea as anybody has of what exactly "Establishment" means.

Thank you GC, you are a wealth of information and I will read it all, HOWEVER the founding fathers DID NOT use the term ESTABLISHMENT in the first amendment....

(I really DO NOT want Teacher lead prayer, I am just trying to argue the argument)

And one has to also wonder why it took nearly 200 years of our existence as a country for this to be an issue...for it to be challenged.

 

[goldcatt]

The first case from 1947, Everson v Board of Education:
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

The case that "outlawed" teacher-led school prayer, Engel v Vitale (1962):
Engel v. Vitale

Lee v Weisman (1985)
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

Another big one concerning moments of silence, Wallace v Jaffree (1992)
Wallace v. Jaffree

And the last concerning student led prayer using school facilities, Santa Fe v Doe (2000)
SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE

Pay attention to both the majority opinions and the dissents, you'll see the pattern laid out of what both sides do agree on, where they differ and what pattern they use in their analysis. From that you can get as much of an idea as anybody has of what exactly "Establishment" means.

Thank you GC, you are a wealth of information and I will read it all, HOWEVER the founding fathers DID NOT use the term ESTABLISHMENT in the first amendment....

(I really DO NOT want Teacher lead prayer, I am just trying to argue the argument)

And one has to also wonder why it took nearly 200 years of our existence as a country for this to be an issue...for it to be challenged.

For your last question, I'm not sure that it wasn't challenged at some level. I'm not ambitious enough to go through all of the District and Circuit Court rulings to find out for sure, sorry! But, it was not heard by SCOTUS. I would surmise cultural elements played a role, much the same way as Jim Crow was tolerated for so long in part due to cultural rather than sound legal concerns and for much the same reason. But that's only speculation.

First Amendment text:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Bill of Rights | LII / Legal Information Institute

What exactly does "establishment" mean, and then what precisely does it mean to "respect an establishment" of religion? This is where your differing views come in, depending on your choice of secondary source.

 

[Care4all]

The first case from 1947, Everson v Board of Education:
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

The case that "outlawed" teacher-led school prayer, Engel v Vitale (1962):
Engel v. Vitale

Lee v Weisman (1985)
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

Another big one concerning moments of silence, Wallace v Jaffree (1992)
Wallace v. Jaffree

And the last concerning student led prayer using school facilities, Santa Fe v Doe (2000)
SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE

Pay attention to both the majority opinions and the dissents, you'll see the pattern laid out of what both sides do agree on, where they differ and what pattern they use in their analysis. From that you can get as much of an idea as anybody has of what exactly "Establishment" means.

Thank you GC, you are a wealth of information and I will read it all, HOWEVER the founding fathers DID NOT use the term ESTABLISHMENT in the first amendment....

(I really DO NOT want Teacher lead prayer, I am just trying to argue the argument)

And one has to also wonder why it took nearly 200 years of our existence as a country for this to be an issue...for it to be challenged.

For your last question, I'm not sure that it wasn't challenged at some level. I'm not ambitious enough to go through all of the District and Circuit Court rulings to find out for sure, sorry! But, it was not heard by SCOTUS. I would surmise cultural elements played a role, much the same way as Jim Crow was tolerated for so long in part due to cultural rather than sound legal concerns and for much the same reason. But that's only speculation.

First Amendment text:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Bill of Rights | LII / Legal Information Institute

What exactly does "establishment" mean, and then what precisely does it mean to "respect an establishment" of religion? This is where your differing views come in, depending on your choice of secondary source.

oh crud, TFA does say establishment and not established.... I got twisted around for a minute or 2....

I guess it depends...How about this as a counter argument... by using the word AN establishment of religion means that establishment is a NOUN, a physical "church" or institution of worship or religion so to say...

and not a verb, and if it said 'establishing or establishes' then it would mean what you say, but since it clearly uses an establishMENT, it is speaking of a physical object, an institution, an establishment of religion or a church or a synagogue or a temple....etc?