When did the Bill of Rights die?

School prayer charges stir protests - Washington Times

Ok, those following me elsewhere will see I've not been quiet about this one. I just saw it today, or I'd have been upset well before now.

So what has me upset? - a Florida school was accused by the ACLU of pushing Christianity on its students, and after a court order was not allowed to do a number of things. Among them, allow the student body president to speak at graduation because she was a "known Christian" who might say something religious. This is a VERY blatant violation of civil rights and is the textbook-definition discrimination against someone for being Christian. Phase 2 - the ACLU has reported two faculty members since the court involvement for prayer in school. Yes, that thing we're supposed to believe was all the fabrication of fearmongers is happening in reality in Florida. And this isn't just a firing offense, there is jailtime associated with these charges.

So in summary - a student is barred from speaking because she's a Christian, and two people are threatened with jail time because they prayed.

What happened to religious freedom? - You can thank the ACLU for these particular attacks on civil liberties, but at the heart of the problem is the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" and other such groups that have decided that the First Amendment doesn't mean what it says, but instead means that practicing religion in public is a horrible crime.

So let's review this First Amendment:

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.

First off, it says "Congress shall make no law...". Ok, so that right there kills any argument that the First Amendment means a school employee can't be openly religious. The way it's worded, anyone but Congress could make a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", but let's assume the people involved care about the spirit of the law.

The purpose, in fairly plain English here and reinforced through numerous historical documents, is to protect the freedom of individuals to exercise their own religion without interferance by the government. Decisions such as this directly and unquestionably "prohibit the free exercise thereof".

I can understand that, as a relative minority, atheists and agnostics feel they lack power within our society and are at risk of religious persecution. Of course, they claim they're non-religious, but we'll still allow that term. I don't understand, though, how a minority is allowed to commit the same atrocity against the majority that they claim to fear.