Over the past couple of days, three news stories have caught my eye, and I wanted to bring some attention to them.
In the first, apparently Kentucky has several references to ‘Almighty God’ in several of its laws, and a judge has ruled this unconstitutional, per
this AJC article. One quote in particular from the judge sums up my feelings on the matter quite well:
Even assuming that most of this nation’s citizens have historically depended upon God, by choice, for their protection, this does not give the General Assembly the right to force citizens to do so now.
Key words being “choice” and “force”. People have their own beliefs on religion, and those beliefs may be different from yours or mine – and that is perfectly OK. What is NOT OK is for either side to use the force of government to dictate its beliefs to the other.
The next story comes to us from the NWFL area, in Santa Rosa County, to be exact. Apparently, there has been a dispute for about a year now over officials there praying in school, with the current issue being blessings over food. Here is the story from a group of defenders of the officials: LayFreemanDefense.com, and here is the ACLU-Florida’s account. This is one of those issues where a Google search for “Lay Freeman FL” will return quite a few hits from several different blogs, as well as reports from CNN, Fox, and USA Today.
Quite honestly, my own feelings here are simple: If a person wants to individually pray before a meal, that is their choice – no matter where they are at. To publicly pray at a governmental meeting of any form is a de facto endorsement of religion – which is a subject that government should be strictly neutral on. Again, anyone is perfectly free to pray privately any time they wish – including by voice just before eating or meeting. Where the line is crossed, to me, is when a person in leadership – such as ANY adult at a school, or even student leaders such as popular kids, class officers, etc – asks others to pray with them.
Indeed, my own feelings on the matter were summed up quite well in my ‘Freedom of Religion‘ post back in April, when I said
Government picking a side in religion is one of the cruelest, most sadistic things government can do to an individual, and our Founding Fathers knew this. They wanted us to be FREE to live our lives as we see fit, and not have to worry about what anyone else thought. Therefore, Congress was specifically ordered to be completely neutral on issues of religion. If someone wanted to pray, they were free to do so. If someone beside them wanted to continue to talk, they were also free to do so.
Finally, a story out of the ‘Free State‘ where a girl’s mother wants to homeschool her, the girl’s father wants her in public school, they are divorced – and even though there are no academic or social defencies noted by anyone, a judge has ordered her into public school. I couldn’t find an site stating the father’s case, though this blog entry on the Campaign for Liberty site has some comments that make interesting points in that regard. Here is the mother’s side, from the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing her.
Who has more claim to the kid? The mother or the father? That is one of those thorny issues that even I’m not going to step in, at least not yet. Because the mother and the father cannot work together on this though, it is actually a perfect case for why a court system is needed, even in a minimal government model. As with anything, when a case lands in court, both sides are essentially rolling the dice, and for the moment it appears the mom has lost that gamble. Either way the judge ruled – either leave the kid in home school or move her to public school – her was essentially siding with one parent or the other, and it is his job as a judge to make those calls. Personally, I tend to leave things unchanged as long as they are working, and would have thus sided with the mother, but that is me, and I am not a lawyer – much less a judge!
For more SWGAPolitics.com coverage of the intersection of politics and religion, see ‘God and Government‘, ‘The Year of the Bible? Why?‘, and ‘Freedom of Religion‘.
Sounds like we’re 180 on this one Jeff, and I’m dumb enough to jump in.
There is no place in America that I should be restrained from exercising my freedom of religion, including prayers – regardless of my job. Let’s look at the “religion” part of the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
A school official, an elected legislator, a judge, a mayor, etc. does nothing to establish a religion when praying. However, making rules to forbid them from praying seems to me to “prohibit the free exercise thereof”. Oddly, cases have prohibited Christian prayer, but not “prohibited” the free exercise of less common religions.
Succintly, your interpretation restricts some from praying. My interpretation allows all. Under my interpretation, Christian, Jewish, Buddist, etc. are free to exercise their religions anywhere without government interference.
What is so offensive about someone of a different religion saying a prayer? As a Christian, I can tell my children that Mr. AAAAA is Jewish and thats why he prays differently. Or Mrs. BBBBB is Hindu and comes from India. A prayer said in your presence does not mean it is being “forced” on you any more than different clothing styles, political theories with which you disagree, or rap music. In my younger days, saying “Merry Christmas” even to my Jewish friends was not received as an insult. Neither was “Happy Hannukah” when said in return.
The restriction of religion is a modern American phenomena. It is a prohibition, not an exercise of freedom. Boy Scout troops are critisized for teaching “Reverence”. Are you kidding me? Talk about being over-sensitive – anyone who gets angry because someone else says a prayer in their presence, needs help.
I feel that teachers, council members, and anyone else in America should be free to say a prayer anywhere. I find it surprising that you take the side of the government on this issue.
I could say more but this comment is too long as it is. I’ll say a quick prayer for you dude.
One of the reasons this great Republic was created was to escape persecution by the church of england..the pilgrims crossed an ocean and left everything they knew for this new world where they would be free to practice their beliefs and be able to worship and live openly without fear.
Somehow today that legacy of freedom is under attact, even by many well intentioned people. The term seperation of church and state is really an oxymoron in my opinion because today only christians are persacuted for their beliefs, while other religions are free to pratice as they see fit, even to the extent that in some instances special considerations are even made to accomidate them.
Our founding fathers mandated that the state would not mandate any state sponsored religions, as the crown had done with the church of england. Never once did they say anything about prohibiting religion, which is what is happening today in America. The correct term is freedom “OF” religion, not freedom “FROM” religion.
Finally, as I think this trend all the way through, by remaining on this path and taking away all public displays of reverence, isnt that in essense mandating a new state religion of aethiesm? And if anyone has the right to not pray or observe religious traditions, according to logic that states that someone else must have the right to observe or practice. Me thinks some common sense needs to be used in this debate.
From Cartman:
“Succintly, your interpretation restricts some from praying.”
“I feel that teachers, council members, and anyone else in America should be free to say a prayer anywhere.”
From Jeff:
“If a person wants to individually pray before a meal, that is their choice – no matter where they are at.”
“Again, anyone is perfectly free to pray privately any time they wish – including by voice just before eating or meeting.”
In other words, we completely agree that absolutely anyone should be free to say a prayer anywhere. Even council members, school administrators, and others can say a prayer before their events, and I’m perfectly cool with it – as long as they do it individually and don’t use their position of influence and social pressure to coerce/force others.
As an aside: Religion and politics are the two most volatile areas of discussion, even among the best of friends. Nothing raises the ire of folks quicker than disagreement about their faith. A sentiment common to both sides of the issue of public prayers is that no one likes anyone else to dictate their religious practice.
I applaud you for fearlessly putting this on the table for discussion. Thanks Jeff.
Jeff, thanks for breaching the subject!
Personally I choose the agnostic / atheistic route. I was raised in a Christian home – my father is Southern Baptist, my mother was a Christian Scientist. (No, this isn’t the same thing as Scientology… go look up the difference if you must…) But my personal belief is that there may or may not be a god… I’m not real sure one way or the other. Most Christians believe just as strongly that their god is THE god of choice as those who used to worship Thor, Zeus, and many of the other gods of various eras. Most peoples’ religions are based on where they were raised. If you were raised in the US, chances are that it was Christianity that influenced your upbringing. If it was Mexico, Catholicism. India – Hindu or some other related religion. But to force me to sit quietly while you pray to your mythology is forcing your religion upon me. I have no problem with an individual blessing their food before a meal. But to gather everyone’s attention and publicly pray for their food too assuming that they’ll bow their head and close their eyes while you do so is a bit much. Unless of course you don’t mind me getting up after your public blessing and offering up my opinion of your beliefs as well.
Kind of like listening to another nation’s national anthem. Just don’t bow your head and close your eyes. What’s so hard about that?
Cartman – I think the last time I had to sit through another nation’s national anthem was the 96 olympics. However, us non-believers are constantly bombarded by people that want to bless food, pray for rain, pray to begin city council meetings, pray for the team before the game, pray for the sick, pray for the needy, pray for the hungry, etc. If I had to endure their prayers as many times as I have to sit through other nations’ national anthems, it might be a different story.
I’d certainly prefer that people spend more time working for the needy, hungry, and doing good deeds than the amount of time they spend praying for them. If they did, I don’t think hunger, poverty and homelessness would be such issues these days.
Understood David. We’ll just have to leave it as something on which we disagree. I think that prayers can move mountains and sincerely doubt the people to whom you refer are praying with the intention of irritating you.
I agree that their intent certainly isn’t to irritate. And it really doesn’t irritate me all that much. But to me it’s a waste of time. If every time you went to eat you had to sit there quietly while someone did a dance to the food gods, or prayed to Allah or performed some other sort of ceremony, you might think differently.
Perhaps it’s not the prayers themselves that move mountains, it’s the people who really act on what they believe that move mountains. It’s the do-ers, not just the thinkers. If more people were Christ-like and actually acted on their beliefs instead of just putting them on public display – what was the Bible verse… Matthew 6:5?
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to that they may be seen by men.”
I’d like to add to that:
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners and capitol steps, city council meetings, high school graduation ceremonies, podiums, meals, and various other events, that they may be seen by men.”
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. I Cor 1:18
I’ve always thought the phrase “Jesus Saves” was kind of funny.
Jesus saves. Thankfully the bank that held his money was backed by the FDIC or else he would have lost it all.
OK, before this one gets out of hand, here’s something to think about.
I am a Christian, a devout one. I wasn’t always though, and in fact was part of belief systems as non-Chistian as you can get, so I know both sides of the issue here.
I’ve always been a proponent of the good old “moment of silence” as a way for people to pray in their own manner (or not as the case may be) without anyone feeling like they’re being forced to endure another’s beliefs. As a Christian, I personally find nothing wrong with a prayer before a meal or event, but I didn’t always feel that way. As all Americans have their own right to their own religions, why not find a way that doesn’t involve denying our respective faiths but instead encourages us to be our own selves.
Tom – I completely agree. I certainly don’t mind if someone quietly prays over their own meal before they eat. But having your previous background, I’m sure you also can understand that when it’s the focal point of everyone in the room at that paricular moment while someone prays out loud, that’s where it changes.
A moment of silence is one thing. A moment of the teacher praying out loud before the class is another.
I’ll pray for you David….quietly.
errm… thanks? I’ll have a glass of wine or a whisky and coke for you.
Rebel Yell and coke, lots of ice. Drink it cold. Trust me on this.