Aspirin99
07-09-2007, 11:40 AM
The following is my reply to my sister regarding the petition she emailed to me. She wanted me to sign this petition in support of an amendment that would allow group prayer in public schools. This is the first time I've thought about this apologetically, so my arguments may be a little rough around the edges. I should also add, my sister believed prayer was prohibited in school. That said, here is my reply.
-------------
The issue is not whether or not they will let someone pray. Although, that is what over zealous fundamentalist Christians want people to believe. In 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that government sponsored worship was unconstitutional, but they never prohibited prayer in schools. The right of the individual to pray in school has never been prohibited and can never be prohibited. In fact, in 1995, the following memo was issued by federal Department of Education to public school superintendents:
* students can read religious books, say a prayer before meals and pray before tests, etc. to the same extent that they may engage in comparable secular non-disruptive activities
* In informal settings (cafeterias, hallways, etc.) students may pray and may discuss religious topics with other students, just as they may talk about other subjects
* Students can proselytize with other students; however they cannot engage in religiously motivated harassment
* No student can be coerced into participating in any religious activity
* Teachers and administrators cannot discourage or promote religious activity because of its religious content; this applies to anti-religious activity as well.
* Schools can teach about religion and its role in society; they can teach about the Bible as literature. But they cannot provide religious instruction.
* Students can distribute religious literature in the same way that they are permitted to distribute non-religious literature.
* Students may be released to attend religious classes at other location; teachers and administrators cannot encourage or discourage students from taking advantage of such classes
* Schools can teach about common civic values, but they must be neutral with respect to religion.
So you see, it has never been an issue of keeping someone from praying. The real motive of currently proposed amendments is to instill "group prayer." There have been several amendments up for consideration on this topic, but they generally fall into two groups: one prohibits from prohibiting voluntary prayer and the other allows for a moment of silence (at which time the student is encouraged to pray, meditate, etc).
In my opinion, this is more of a political issue. Politicians want to pander to the religious right by bringing up these types of amendments. There is no problem that needs fixing. They are doing it for votes, trying to appeal to those who feel that they are voting for someone who will restore morality in America. These amendments are not necessary and will cause division and hatred.
Group prayer in schools will not return America to morality. Teaching morals and ethics will. Piety is not virtue. The absence of religion is not immorality.
People can pray in school any time they want. Most major religions believe that God hears prays whether they are spoken in a whisper, shouted from a roof or even in your mind only. Saying that you cannot pray in school is like saying that you cannot think in school- Or that you cannot whisper under your breath in school. It's ridiculous. There is not a public school in America that would try to keep a Christian from praying over his lunch in the lunch room or uttering a silent prayer before a math test.
If you open the door to government sponsored group prayer time, you create the potential for fanatical religious expression. If you have never been exposed to religious fanaticism, a moment of silence may seem innocuous to you, but it has potential for disastrous emotional harm.
Government sponsored prayer time is a clear invitation divisiveness. It will divide people, not bring them together. It is unnecessary and will distract from education.
As a side note (and nearly tongue in cheek), even the Bible is against school prayer:
"Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men...
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret." - Matt. 6:5-6
If you want to appreciate the value of separation of church and state, look at Iraq right now. We are fighting those who want a theocracy- State imposed religious law. Look at Iran, a state lead by religious clerics. Look at the Taliban and how they oppressed people as a government lead by religion.
If any group would not want to place the governments hand into religion, it should be Christians. We fought hard for the freedom of religion. The separation of church and state is worth preserving.
When our founding fathers framed the constitution, they came out of a bloody Europe- a Europe that fought nearly all of its wars either directly or indirectly over religion. They wanted out from under a monarchy that controlled the church. They knew the potential disasters of mixing church and state, so they wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
- First Amendment, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution
It is healthy for government to remain neutral in religion. Taking one step away from neutrality is a step backwards toward what we fought to gain freedom from. To amend the constitution to provide for government sponsored group prayer, you would be removing a right from the constitution ? not adding one. I, for one, do not want to lose any of my rights.
In summary, I believe the following:
1. There is no problem with people being able to pray in school. Individuals can pray in school whenever they want.
2. If there is no problem, what is the real motivation?
3. The hullabaloo over school prayer is largely political in nature. The motivations by politicians are not honest (image that). It?s all about votes.
4. People believe that they are doing a good thing by supporting this amendment because they want to restore morality in America. However, piety will not restore morality. Ethics will restore morality. Instead, government sponsored group prayer will bring division and distraction.
5. Instituting government sponsored prayer time causes unnecessary division between Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc. Government should be neutral on religion in education. That?s what religious freedom is about.
6. While the State may claim that a moment of silence has no intention of promoting one particular religion, in practice, the religious majority of a particular school will make the minority feel uncomfortable or hated.
7. Amending the constitution to allow government sponsored prayer time removes one of our rights from the Bill of Rights.
8. Allowing the state to dictate religious matters could harm the church. For example, the government could eventually dictate some religious activity that conflicts with the beliefs of one or more religious groups. Again, causing division.
9. I can only imagine what religious activities will be requested from other religions, fanatical religious branches and non-religious groups if this were approved. You think you?re just letting in one cute little monkey, when, in reality, the whole circus is right behind him.
-------------
The issue is not whether or not they will let someone pray. Although, that is what over zealous fundamentalist Christians want people to believe. In 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that government sponsored worship was unconstitutional, but they never prohibited prayer in schools. The right of the individual to pray in school has never been prohibited and can never be prohibited. In fact, in 1995, the following memo was issued by federal Department of Education to public school superintendents:
* students can read religious books, say a prayer before meals and pray before tests, etc. to the same extent that they may engage in comparable secular non-disruptive activities
* In informal settings (cafeterias, hallways, etc.) students may pray and may discuss religious topics with other students, just as they may talk about other subjects
* Students can proselytize with other students; however they cannot engage in religiously motivated harassment
* No student can be coerced into participating in any religious activity
* Teachers and administrators cannot discourage or promote religious activity because of its religious content; this applies to anti-religious activity as well.
* Schools can teach about religion and its role in society; they can teach about the Bible as literature. But they cannot provide religious instruction.
* Students can distribute religious literature in the same way that they are permitted to distribute non-religious literature.
* Students may be released to attend religious classes at other location; teachers and administrators cannot encourage or discourage students from taking advantage of such classes
* Schools can teach about common civic values, but they must be neutral with respect to religion.
So you see, it has never been an issue of keeping someone from praying. The real motive of currently proposed amendments is to instill "group prayer." There have been several amendments up for consideration on this topic, but they generally fall into two groups: one prohibits from prohibiting voluntary prayer and the other allows for a moment of silence (at which time the student is encouraged to pray, meditate, etc).
In my opinion, this is more of a political issue. Politicians want to pander to the religious right by bringing up these types of amendments. There is no problem that needs fixing. They are doing it for votes, trying to appeal to those who feel that they are voting for someone who will restore morality in America. These amendments are not necessary and will cause division and hatred.
Group prayer in schools will not return America to morality. Teaching morals and ethics will. Piety is not virtue. The absence of religion is not immorality.
People can pray in school any time they want. Most major religions believe that God hears prays whether they are spoken in a whisper, shouted from a roof or even in your mind only. Saying that you cannot pray in school is like saying that you cannot think in school- Or that you cannot whisper under your breath in school. It's ridiculous. There is not a public school in America that would try to keep a Christian from praying over his lunch in the lunch room or uttering a silent prayer before a math test.
If you open the door to government sponsored group prayer time, you create the potential for fanatical religious expression. If you have never been exposed to religious fanaticism, a moment of silence may seem innocuous to you, but it has potential for disastrous emotional harm.
Government sponsored prayer time is a clear invitation divisiveness. It will divide people, not bring them together. It is unnecessary and will distract from education.
As a side note (and nearly tongue in cheek), even the Bible is against school prayer:
"Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men...
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret." - Matt. 6:5-6
If you want to appreciate the value of separation of church and state, look at Iraq right now. We are fighting those who want a theocracy- State imposed religious law. Look at Iran, a state lead by religious clerics. Look at the Taliban and how they oppressed people as a government lead by religion.
If any group would not want to place the governments hand into religion, it should be Christians. We fought hard for the freedom of religion. The separation of church and state is worth preserving.
When our founding fathers framed the constitution, they came out of a bloody Europe- a Europe that fought nearly all of its wars either directly or indirectly over religion. They wanted out from under a monarchy that controlled the church. They knew the potential disasters of mixing church and state, so they wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
- First Amendment, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution
It is healthy for government to remain neutral in religion. Taking one step away from neutrality is a step backwards toward what we fought to gain freedom from. To amend the constitution to provide for government sponsored group prayer, you would be removing a right from the constitution ? not adding one. I, for one, do not want to lose any of my rights.
In summary, I believe the following:
1. There is no problem with people being able to pray in school. Individuals can pray in school whenever they want.
2. If there is no problem, what is the real motivation?
3. The hullabaloo over school prayer is largely political in nature. The motivations by politicians are not honest (image that). It?s all about votes.
4. People believe that they are doing a good thing by supporting this amendment because they want to restore morality in America. However, piety will not restore morality. Ethics will restore morality. Instead, government sponsored group prayer will bring division and distraction.
5. Instituting government sponsored prayer time causes unnecessary division between Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc. Government should be neutral on religion in education. That?s what religious freedom is about.
6. While the State may claim that a moment of silence has no intention of promoting one particular religion, in practice, the religious majority of a particular school will make the minority feel uncomfortable or hated.
7. Amending the constitution to allow government sponsored prayer time removes one of our rights from the Bill of Rights.
8. Allowing the state to dictate religious matters could harm the church. For example, the government could eventually dictate some religious activity that conflicts with the beliefs of one or more religious groups. Again, causing division.
9. I can only imagine what religious activities will be requested from other religions, fanatical religious branches and non-religious groups if this were approved. You think you?re just letting in one cute little monkey, when, in reality, the whole circus is right behind him.