RSS
Home
Whose prayer should be recited in school?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
I have posted an article on what many devout Christians feel is the unfortunate secularization of Christmas, which then became an attack on all things Christian. I stated in that post that I felt the War on Christmas was not an isolated belief held by fundamentalist Christians but was one front in what some sincerely devout people believe is an attack on their faith, carried out by secular forces. There are three areas in which this “attack” is said to take place; first in the War on Christmas, second in the issue of public recitation of prayer in the schools and, third, in the issues surrounding the erection of religious monuments on public property. In many instances, I submit, these feelings of exclusion and frustration are too often manipulated by those in or seeking powers to enhance their own popularity or media ratings.
A brief note on the Constitution.
Conflicts, arguments and discussions in this and related areas start with the First Amendment to the Constitution, and, in particular, the phrase that is emphasized:
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.
The Amendment, by its terms, restricts only the Federal government; prior to 1886 the Supreme Court had held in many cases that the First Amendment would not affect a state or a local jurisdiction. It has been argued that the greatest and most extensive expansion of civil liberties and rights came about through the 14th Amendment adopted in that year. Designed to grant rights to freed slaves, that Amendment covers several areas, but, for this discussion, the operative words are:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States….deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person …. [e]qual protection of the laws.”
The result is that neither the Federal government nor any state or subdivision may restrict the basic freedom of religion. A private employer or a homeowner may pray, forbid prayer, build a monument or post a sign on private property or, as I will discuss in a subsequent post, erect the largest Confederate Battle Flag in the world on his property. Governments, Federal, state and local, have a much narrower range of action.
Public recitation of prayer on public property is usually inappropriate, especially at the grade school level.
The phrase prohibiting the “establishment of religion” has a particular meaning and effect here, because directing the recitation of prayers by students requires a determination of the particular prayer involved. And here is where the problems start.
Most of those who disapprove of public recitation of prayer have several stated reasons, other than a general reference to a Wall between Church and state, a “rule” that is breeched with regularity when, for example, a city or county uses the Salvation Army or any other faith based group to run a probation program.
Sometimes, proponents of school believe that holding school public prayers will improve behavior and that any interference is proof that Christianity, itself, is under attack. They suggest the abolition of the public recital of Christian (actually mostly Protestant, the Catholic version is, I believe, a phrase shorter) prayer in school is the cause of youth running wild and objecting to such prayer is conclusive evidence of prejudice against and hatred of Christianity. It is not necessary to adopt or refute that position because of a serious and introductory issue to be considered.
What or whose prayer should be recited in school?
In New York, there was an effort to create a prayer that would upset no one, except atheists. (To one who denies the existence of any Deity, it shouldn’t matter to whom others pray since it would appear to the denier, no one is there to listen.)
In 1962, the Supreme Court held that, because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in New York public schools at the beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wished to do so might remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. The prayer was, indeed, written to avoid offending anyone - and ended up offending everyone, including the truly pious who felt the prayer wishy-washy:
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."
[An aside: I have always wondered why the Lord would speak in 16th century vernacular; but that’s not relevant here.]
The Court, in Engle v Vitale, was clear in its holding and the reasons for it.
"The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is not part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."
The holding of the Court would, I submit, apply to any designated Bible portion, chosen by a student with government approval, or any prayer recited by a teacher or by a Clergyman in a classroom.
School kids are allowed to pray if they so wish; I certainly said a silent prayer before tests and a less worthy one before some dates. Problems arise when prayers are said aloud in a public ceremony, written or authorized or selected by government and those of a faith other than the majority or the person leading th recitation are asked or pressured to participate. Question: would you be equally in favor of a public prayer from a Pagan, a Wiccan, a Muslim?
As one who is Jewish, I object to my children and grandchildren being pressured to pray to or through a Deity they do not recognize. There are basic and fundamental differences. We do not pray in the name of or through Jesus and we have cultural recollection of forced conversions to prove the point. I have vivid memories of being chased by bullies in my grammar school days, calling me a "Christ killer' and yelling that I was responsible for Jesus' death. Priests taught (and some still do) their young parishioners about the "perfidious Jews", resorts and hotels near where I grew up had placards at the front desk that "Jews and dogs" were unwelcome. All in the name of the majority faith that expected me to join in Christmas festivals, the singing of carols and the joining of prayer "in His Name". Please do not expect me to be concerned over alleged persecution of the majority. The minorities among us need protection. There will always be sufficient votes to safeguard the interests of the majority-popular portions of our society. So, first one must examine the question of organized prayer in schools with the initial inquiry: whose prayer? Who will choose?
Better to have prayer meaningful, heart-felt, not by rote and sincere as Jesus had urged, privately and not for display.
Maybe, God forbid, at home, with family.
Related Articles:
Comments
- Email criticisms and accolades to jstillman@iqzero.net
- Check out advertisers on this page
