Skip to main content

The Silence is Deafening

Our judicial system continues to turn a deaf ear to States that try to return prayer to our public schools by beginning the school day with a moment of silence. The Courts take this posture despite the fact that each day it is in session the U.S. Congress is opened with a verbal prayer. Illinois, the state of Presidential candidate Barack Obama, is the latest to feel the Courts' indignation over having a moment of silence.

Last October the Illinois’ state legislature passed a law requiring a moment of silence in public school. Suit was promptly filed by an atheist challenging the law on the basis of the First Amendment establishment of religion clause, which prohibits the establishment of a State religion. The case is in the U.S. District Court, and though the Court has not yet issued a formal ruling, it has found that the law is “probably” unconstitutional. As such, the Court has mandated that this law shall be stayed until a final ruling is made.

This would have been unheard of prior to the 1960’s when prayer and reading the Bible in public schools was an accepted norm. However, that changed in 1962 when the Supreme Court ruling in Engel v. Vitale placed a prohibition on public schools sponsoring prayer in the school. At issue was the following prayer that teachers in the Union Free School District (New York) were required to lead at the beginning of each school day:

"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."

How the Court found that this prayer established a State religion seems beyond rationale thinking. In fact, it is difficult to believe that this prayer would even be controversial; especially today, when recent polling indicates some 93% of Americans believe in a divine being, or divine presence. Surely, even Oprah, would not find such a prayer offensive, as it has more of a universal appeal rather than one that is tied to a particular faith tradition. (To read more about this case go to: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421)

Having successfully removed prayer, the following year, the court issued another ruling which prohibited Bible reading in public schools (Abington School District v. Schempp). In this case, the Schempp family, who were Unitarians, filed suit in opposition to a PA Statute which required: "At least ten verses from the Holy Bible shall be read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day”. This statute further provided children could opt out of participating with a written request from their parent or guardian. (To read more about this case go to: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=374&invol=203)

I was still in grade school in the “Bible Belt” when these rulings were issued and can remember teachers continuing to have Bible reading and prayer in class for years afterward. These teachers were simply reflecting the “faith” beliefs and traditions of the community – the same beliefs and traditions that were honored and present at the founding of our nation and that are still widely held today.

In fact, a 2005 Gallup poll found that 76% of Americans favor “a constitutional amendment to allow voluntary prayer in public schools”. The Gallup researchers concluded “[the survey] confirms that whatever arguments political leaders make about separation of church and state in the public schools, most Americans don't seem to be persuaded. Large majorities continue to favor allowing voluntary prayer in public schools, and believe that religion has too little presence in them”.

Like Illinois, a number of states have tried to maintain the right to pray in public schools by passing statutes providing for silent prayer. But the Courts have often intervened on the basis of a ruling that such laws must have a non-religious, or secular, motivation. So, "secular" or "non-religious" praying is okay?

My own state, Alabama, found that out in the case of Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985. In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed an Appeals Court ruling that an Alabama Statute – allowing public schools to have a one minute period of silence, “for meditation or voluntary prayer” – “is a law respecting the establishment of religion and thus violates the First Amendment”. (To read more about this case go to: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=472&invol=38)

The journey to remove God from our schools has been a relatively short and efficient one. It is also one that has been carried out despite being out of step with the will of the majority and often under the ridiculous assertion that these laws were meant to establish a State religion.

In a country where freedom of speech is a guaranteed right, it seems odd that the Supreme Court finds a moment of silence to be so offensive and out of step with our guaranteed rights. Perhaps people of faith need to exercise that right to free speech more often and make known the “will of the people”.

That's my toughts, what are yours?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Muslim President - Really?

I found it interesting that, in conjunction with the Alabama and Mississippi primaries, Public Policy Polling thought it would be a good idea to poll the people of my fair state and those in Mississippi to see where those voting in the Republican primary stood on the President’s religion. They found 45% of those polled in Alabama believe him to be a Muslim and 14% consider him a Christian. His numbers were even worse in Mississippi where 52% of those polled believed him to be a Muslim and only 12% a Christian. Some question the accuracy of these polls which considered responses from only 600 voters. However, maybe the numbers are accurate. Consider the results of similar polling done by Pew Research among conservative Republicans on a national level. In 2009 they found that 18% of conservative Republicans believed the President to be a Muslim. When taking the poll in 2010 the number was on the rise having increased to 34% of conservative Republicans believing him a Muslim. Maybe th...

The Bible Comes to Prime Time

On Sunday, 3-3-13, the Bible will be featured on the History Channel as a "prime time" 10-part mini-series simply titled, "The Bible". Though not the first time the History Channel has aired programming related to the Bible, the producers promise this one will be different. For, unlike past programs, they have said The Bible is not intended to approach the Bible as an "investigation" or "mystery" as the network has done in past documentaries; but, rather to be a more straightforward interpretation. Hopefully, by straightforward they mean accurate. I have high hopes that it will be an accurate representation, and after watching the previews, I am actually looking forward to watching this series. However, the viewer should keep in mind it is a docudrama, which means that "artistic" liberties will surely be taken in the telling of the story. In fairness, that is not unusual in historical documentaries and should not be a reason for Chr...

Aliens Among Us

Last week, the National Geographic Channel (NGC) released the results of its "Aliens Among Us" poll. The poll was conducted in May of 2012 and was commissioned to bring attention to the new NGC program, "Chasing UFOs" which premiered Friday, June 29, 2012. While most of the poll's questions were typical of those asked in other polls regarding the beliefs of Americans concerning space aliens and UFOs, NGC senior vice president, Brad Dancer acknowledged not all the questions were serious; but, some were intended to be fun and to measure the impact of pop culture references on these beliefs. These "fun" questions included: "Who would better handle an alien invasion, President Barack Obama or Republican Challenger, Mitt Romney?" And, "Which superhero would you call in to fight off an alien attack?" The more serious questions were consistent with the findings of prior polling related to UFOs in revealing the extent of Am...