Prayer in Schools

Remove all ads!

I always used to pray for opportunities to have sex! Still do, come to think of it . . .

Say you have a community that is 99.99% Exxillian (a made up religion for the purposes of this discussion.) All of the students at the elementary school and all of the teachers are Exxillian. For the past 5 generations the day at the school has started with an Exxillian prayer. Then a Y-ite family moves to the community.

Now the Exxillian prayer contains no content like "The Y-ites are scum and lead us as we eradicate their filth from the face of the earth" it is a general invocation asking deity to protect and guide the pray-ers throughout the day.

The crux of the issue is this -- what damage does it cause the Y-ite kid to hear this prayer daily? No one is trying to undermine the Y-Ite father from following his religion or pass it on to his kid. It's not like the prayer was initiated for the express purpose of making life difficult for the Y-ite kid or family. There is no damage being done here, and I fail to see why the majority should have to change its practices to accomodate the feelings of a minority when there is no harm being done.

Now I know my example is outdated, as there is no clear majority in the West today. But many Christians feel that the slow shift away from prayer in schools over the past 100 years has been a case of minority rights unjustly forcing majority change.

I'm not one of those Christians, but I can see where they are coming from. Were I to move to a Muslim country, I would teach my kids to be quiet and respectful during the Muslim prayer, and I would teach them the doctrines of my own faith at home. Not worth getting wound up about IMHO.

 

Well LKD, you have just used the term "No harm being done" a few times. Could you clarify that a little more? I wouldn't call it harm per se, not in the physical sense, but I don't like the idea that my child could be swayed in the littlest way toward that religion when they are not mature enough to make that type of decision. Is that harm? It could be considered harm I guess. At least in my eyes it's harming my kid mentally and I would want it stopped. I'm not ignorant enough to say I'm right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. But it is how I want the system to work when my kids enter the school system. It might not happen, but it's what I would prefer.

 

Extremist Christians and others have used the same logic to argue against evolution and some other things being taught in science and history classes as well. As I mentioned earlier, in order for their to be a really strong case about banning something or changing something, there has to be evidence that what is being done is quantifiably damaging. I'm not certain that the "I'm a parent and I don't like it" argument is sufficient grounds. Because let's be honest -- if you send your kid to school, one of these days he's gonna be exposed to something that you don't like.

As many have mentioned, the right to not be offended is not recognized by most legal systems.

But don't get me wrong, Blades. I am not advocating that we should return to the Lord's Prayer in the public schools. The society is now so hetergeneous that it would be difficult to find any ritual event that will bring together the population -- even national anthems and pledges of allegiance don't do the trick anymore. And let's face it, the Lord's Prayer was designed to unify people. If it's not doing that job -- and if in fact it is accomplishing the opposite -- then the best bet it to ditch it.

My point is, though, that in a society that is much more homogeneous, I don't see the horrid damage or lifelong scars that would come to the few minority people who heard a prayer daily. Nothing in that implies that they have to believe, and having to show respect for people different from you by shutting up in a majority event is not a bad thing to learn -- the majority should learn that too, for one day, at some point (even if it's only while they are on vacation) they will be the minority.

 

Your right LKD, they wil be exposed to lot's of stuff I would prefer they didn't and I know I will have to stomach it. You know, it really sucks recognizing that fact.

And keeping quiet for the majority isn't a bad practice either and for the most part I agree, except in the case of forced religion, it's my pet peeve and I won't budge on that one.

 

That's another problem. That's not the definition I'm using. I'm using "removal of objectionable or forbidden material". Punishment doesn't come into it. Who does the Supreme Court punish when it deems a law unconstitutional? No one. No one goes to jail. No one is fined.

That's not my definition. That's the dictionary's definition. What you're saying is that the dictionary is wrong and you're right. Good luck with that.

Here, Ragusa and I agree 100%. Apparently our definition of 'captive audience' and 'mandatory' may be a little different. I'm not sure on that one.

The problem with a complete ban is that you also violate the teachers' rights and go from a secular school to an atheist school (or close).

Those that actually want that to happen, I agree with you. Unfortunately, I feel you may be generalizing your argument to anyone who ever wants to pray while on school grounds.

The problem with this is that you pretend that seeing or hearing prayer in passing is forcing it on your children. If you, with a child, walk past a man on the street who is praying, are you going to pull him up and sock him for 'forcing religion on your impressionable child'?

This is what I see as irrational about this argument, and Blades isn't the only one who's presented this. There is a world of difference between witnessing prayer or other religious activities and participating in them. Forcing the latter is absolutely wrong. Forcing the former is all but unavoidable if you allow it at all.

 

Like teachers? Or their oral prayers? Your use of the word censorship is circumspect from the onset, which suggests that there are more precise terms doing a better job of describing what you want to say. That may not be (convenient) single words like 'censorship' though.

The problem with your reference to a complete ban is that it is a pseudo problem (i.e. there is no complete ban in America - see U.S.C. § 6061 below). And anyway, they can at any day always try and find a job at a denominational school where they can pray at heart's content. That's what Jesuits and nuns do in Catholic schools. With their demonstrated fervour they'd be more than qualified in the praying department.

In that spirit, prove to me that you're not wearing motley with cap, bells, and bauble.

I use mandatory as the opposite of voluntary. A captive audience is a captive audience, because it's members can't opt out, because their presence is mandatory, i.e. not voluntary (as in classes or events for all pupils). That is also why voluntary prayer groups in school or voluntary religion lessons are not only no problem but even protected by federal law, whereas official prayers to captive audiences are not.

You still miss the point. What if that kid is a devout Catholic having to speak a Protestant prayer? The difference appears marginal only to you. The first case about prayer in school was about that. Or what about a Jew facing an non-denominational Christian prayer, perhaps in Jesus name, spoken over her, or collectively by her classmates? Everybody participates, jut not the two or three or ten outsiders? Prayer when spoken by a group is about uniting that group in prayer. That's also what it is about when we both pray in church during mass. Now, what if the group prayed over or made to pray is heterogeneous? A majority prayer can mean to a minority that the majority is 'throwing down the gauntlet'.

Now what if our impressionable child is Jewish and succumbs to that peer pressure and starts to pray Christian prayers. Awesome from an evangelical perspective, after all the poor child has eventually found Jesus (or pretends to, to have her peace), but what will her Jewish parents say? Odds are they don't want her in such a situation, and are for keeping religious prayers out of lessons and events, and limit it to voluntary participation.

Essentially, teachers speaking prayers to a 'captive audience' suggests an endorsement of that prayer by the public school, and by extension, by the state. That sends a message to non adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favoured members of the political community. That they were not must have been the feeling that Catholics and Jews must have gotten in Protestant dominated America. In that sense a prayer spoken in an official function, be it an address at a school event, dinner or during classes by a teacher, as a result of his function, can never be merely 'innocent exercise of his personal religious views'.

The other point is that I doubt that the teacher in question simply spoke his prayer compulsively, to prevent his head from exploding. Much less was it in good faith (hah, what a pun!). Having had to accept the consent decree he must have been acutely aware of what he did, and that he wasn't supposed to do it. He did it anyway.

 

Good grief. NOG, I am asking this in all seriousness - Do you find yourself repeating and constantly further explaining yourself in daily conversations with people? The reason I ask is that you seem to use words in a manner that is consistent with a dictionary definition, but is not used in everyone else's vernacular, everyday speech.

"Censorship" is just the latest in probably half a dozen examples I could cite in the last couple of months. You didn't alway argue this way, but your recent modus operandi is that you take a word someone is using, find a definition that is obviously different than what the author intended, and try to twist your argument around that unintended definition.

And this is why I have largely given up debating with you, because I use the definition that 99% of the English-speaking population uses. Until I can find an online NOGese to English translator, I'm giving up.

 

While those could be an example of censorship, I was actually talking about the removal of laws. Again, you seem to be under the odd impression that censorship must be negative and evil. That's not true. It's not even the standard connotation (at least, not in my circles). And, pray tell, what exactly about my usage of the term implies that it's 'circumspect'?

The problem isn't what it is today, but what some atheists are trying to make it.

So now if we want to exercise our rights we need to apply for the right job? Well, I guess since I like weapons so much, I'd better join the military if I ever want to own a gun. I guess since I like expressing my opinions so much I'd better become a politician. You do realize that's what you're saying, right? It's on par with why don't women who feel sexually pressured in their jobs just quit and take another job somewhere else? Why ban sexism in the workplace?

One, I don't need to. Two, if you want to believe that I'm a professional entertainer, go ahead. Three, that doesn't change the fact that I'm trying to use the accepted dictionary definition, not some strange 'personal definition'.

So what about a teacher praying by themselves? I've been a little confused on your position on that point. If you support that just as much as voluntary prayer groups, then I don't think we have any problem.

No, I haven't missed that point. I agree with it entirely. Truely mandatory prayer (and it seems we may have the same definition) is wrong. Even voluntary mass-prayer in a non-voluntary group (i.e. 80% choose to pray at once) is iffy.

As I said earlier, I think we can safely consider multiple options here. If the prayer were a substantially public prayer (i.e. could easily be overheard by anyone involved), then it was objectionable and deserves punishment. If it was the kind of thing that you'd have to strain your hearing to make out what they're actually saying, then I don't think it was objectionable. Do you disagree with either of those?

 

NOG - I wouldn't sock the guy, because that would be illegal. Unless of course, he starts following me around, harassing us for not listening to him, spewing his rhetoric, then yes, he will definitely be eating my fists and trust me, he won't like the taste either. When I was a Freshman at Penn State, there was a guy who would do that, he stood outside of a certain Dorm everyday, they called him the "Preacher". It was ridiculous. He would harass girls if their skirts or shorts were past the top of their knees, calling them whores and damining them to hell. Plus any student with Concert shirts, long hair, dyded hair, the list goes on.... He would pray at the top of the steps everyday. "Witnessing" him is an example that you use that I agree with, not illegal. But once we put our kids in a public school, the rules change because the circumstances change.

As for "witnessing", A teacher praying in class at a public school is not an example of students just "witnessing", as the teacher is in an influential position. They are paid to do their job, nothing else, so they need to stick to the format, which does not involve praying during class. Anyone who is a teacher is intelligent enough to know their influence over the children and know their actions will influence the kids. To say otherwise is .

 

Again, praying durring class I agree with you on. It's when it's outside of official duities (i.e. they aren't expected to be doing anything in particular, and they aren't exercising official power) that I believe they have every right to pray, and I fear you and others are trying to ban prayer.

I'll also agree that there's a huge difference between individual prayer, witnessing, and harassment. The first should be legal in any setting. The second should be legal in public, consentual settings (i.e. street corners, voluntary discussions, ect.), the third should not be allowed anywhere.

 

NOG - At any event sponsored by the school, the teacher is still on official duty. Classroom or no classroom. When the class goes on a Fieldtrip, say to a Muesem or just to a family friendly restaurant, like say "Friendly's", they are not in the class, but the teacher is still the teacher and is responsible for his actions. Praying is still inappropriate. It's not just Aethiests that feel that way, as my wife is in agreement with me. She is definitely a believer in God. She goes to church every Saturday evening. My in-laws as well. I know many people of faith that believe all prayer should not be allowed in public schools. Again, it's not just Aethiests.

 

One correction Blades -- making a public display of praying is not appropriate. Quietly sitting and praying silently to bless his or her meal should never be an issue in any setting.

 

That I'll concede T2.

 

For good measure, back to the case ...

I wrote that because, as the dictionary is right, I give it the benefit of a doubt and assume that you do wear motley with cap, bells, and bauble. You do not deny that fools, jesters, do wear motley with cap, bells, and bauble, right? Now, having defined you as one, you need to fit the description Now that quip was, in a word, a jest. The point is that - while the dictionary can be right till kingdom come - it's correctness doesn't cure misapplication of the words it covers.

They may pray quietly where- and whenever they want. Thoughts are free.

Great, so for the sake for not reiterating let's consider this settled.

That, in fact, was the case.

They stood at the head of a dinner table and everybody was waiting for them to finish their blessing so they they could eat. Yes, I think it is pretty safe to say that one did not need to strain his hearing to make out what they were actually saying. Judging from my experience with dinners, it is also pretty hard to overlook what the hosts of the dinner do as an introduction.

If someone comes across a particularly hard headed person and hisses out an audible Hail Mary nobody would care at all. I do that all the time It's just that that's not the case here. Considering that, you're on the n-th page of charging windmills

The case against the two folks is about as clear as it can get: Lay and Freeman were both under consent decree. Despite that Lay asked Freeman to pray on a school event and Freeman did just that. Lay and Freeman face contempt-of-court proceedings because they purposefully defied a court order [PDF].

Note that the order includes safeguards against circumvention. Lay and Freeman knew all that; they had to sign that order. The principal, Lay, is obviously a deeply religious and religiously active man [mp3] who, judging by what he says, simply has a hard time accepting such a court order. As for the incident in question, Lay himself admitted [PDF] the allegations made against him

We do have the things prohibited in the court order i.e. consent decree:
-School Officials (+)
-Prayer (+)
-School Event (+)
And we have the addressees of consent decree acting against court order they signed, i.e. purposefully (+)

That's all that is needed for this case of contempt of court. And as you previously doubted that, pupils were present, though that doesn't matter for the case, because everything else they did there was prohibited anyway.

 

Again, I'll agree. Administering a field trip is an official activity, with official duties. Having lunch, though, is not. Nor is relaxing in the break room. As anyone who works must know, a work schedule does not consist of actually working from the moment you arrive to the moment you leave for most jobs.

Correct. Your mistake was that I am not, in fact, a jester. Yes, jesters and fools dress that way, but calling me one doesn't make me one. In this case, the characteristics of your definition and the characteristics of the application didn't match up. In my case, the characteristics of the definition and the characteristics of the application do. The Supreme Court does remove illegal and objectionable laws through the legally established methods. That is a censor.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? I haven't seen any reports that say anything other than 'they prayed'.

Thank you. I think this is the first time we've actually seen anything more than your or others' claims about the nature of the prayer. Given what is presented here, I agree that the prayer was inappropriate.

Ragusa, the issue I've been arguing isn't whether or not they violated the order. You seem to be the only one arguing that point. What I was agruing is whether or not the court order was justifiable. Given the wording of the court order, they could have been arrested for folding their hands before they ate. That was the issue I was arguing. Now that we've finally gotten something more concrete than random guesses as to the nature of the prayer, I think we can agree it was inappropriate and settle that matter.

I'd still like to talk about the larger issue it brings up, though. You wrote:

The caveat of 'thoughts' makes me nervous. Are you implying that they can do this standing up with their eyes open, hands by their sides, and mouths closed, but would be arrested for kneeling in a corner, folding their hands, or uttering a quiet, but audible prayer? I just want to get it clear.

 

According to who? You? I am responsible for all of my actions while in my workplace, taking lunch doesn't excuse me of anything I do, at any time. As America turns corporate, more and more jobs are salary, making us "on the clock" at all times while at the workplace. Everyone in my building is never "off" the clock while in the building. That is the 1st thing they shove down your throat at orientaion. You need to talk to an HR manager, any HR manager, I'm 100% positive they'll vigorously disagree with that statement.

 

It all depends on how reasonable we're all willing to be and the effect a prayer has on the other people. I'll use my school as an example. As I have mentioned before, the afternoon prayers performed by the Muslims are a major hassle. Yet in an effort to show respect and understanding, we provide a room for them use for their prayers. We ask them not to pray anywhere else, like the hallways, or in the regular classrooms. Why? I explain it to them this way:

That usually works. Obviously the fellows at the school function that kicked off this whole thread were making more of a scene than just quietly praying. As I have said, they deliberately drew sufficient attention to themselves that they made students feel that they should pipe down or be seen as disrespectful to those praying. Given that they'd already been warned against such flagrant actions in a secular school, and there was a court order to boot, as I have argued before they deserve some harsh punishments.

Now, what if a teacher had slipped away into an empty classroom and prayed very privately? I believe that most of the SP group here would not see that as a problem. However, though some here don't want to admit it, there are some rabidly vicious atheist types out there who would construe that as a violation of the court order as well. It is against those dirtbags that I fight. They lack reason, balance and a sense of proportion. Their position that any and all discussion of religion in a school amounts to brainwashing is absurd and should be vigorously opposed.

 

An empty classroom? Who is seeing him praying then.

That reminds me of the saying "Cop didn't see me, I didn't do it." Where it's still wrong to speed, you know this, but justify it to yourself because the authority didn't catch you in the act and no one was hurt. Sometimes that scenario is justifiable. This instance is one of them. I wouldn't mind if that scenario was happening at my kids school, if no one else is present to see it. But the problem is, at sometime down the road, a child or co-worker will walk in on it, it's bound to happen. What then? Is it still excusable? Or do they reprimand the teacher?

 

If the teacher isn't teaching, they are on a break. Teachers aren't allowed to smoke in class, they can still smoke on a break. Complaining a teacher is praying on school grounds, while not on duty, is ridiculous. If a child walks in - there should be a reason for the child to be wandering around in the first place, which should be addressed first!

Ideally there should be an area where all faiths are welcome to sit and contemplate, reflect and pray without interruption. Like there is in hospitals. A place where students and teachers alike can relax in a quiet environment to pay respects. That is just my opinion however, I'm sure people will be able to pick a thousand holes in it.

 

8, when on break, I agree if it's in private, where others don't have access to you. Fine. Whether or not the child is "supposed" to be in the room is another matter entirely and the teacher should not be responsible for that. But the scenario we were discussing did not mention a child who is breaking the rules. And, I was simply asking the question of what everyone thinks about it, not stating an opinion in the particular case, because I simply don't know the answer to that one. It's a tough call, truly.

What teacher is not on duty while on school grounds? Lunch time or not. They are on duty until they leave the grounds. It's not okay for them to get on their cell phones and start cussing out someone on the other end as they walk to their car, because children can be able to hear them. They need to remain professional and adhere to the rules until off the property and out of sight of their students. I can guarantee that is what any school administrator will tell all of their teachers. That is the same for prayer. If it's against policy or the law, they shouldn't do it school grounds, period.