An article on the website for The Dallas Morning News entitled “Federal Appeals Court Upholds Texas Law Requiring a Minute of Silence in Schools” tells of a court decision to allow Texas public school to have a moment of silence before the start of each school day. Texas had passed a law requiring that there be a mandatory moment of silence after the pledge of allegiance. The problem for some parents comes in with the explanation of the moment of silence. Students are told that there will be a moment of silence in which they can “pray, reflect, meditate or engage in other silent activities.” One couple with three kids in the Texas public school system, claim that mentioning prayer in the description was the advancement of religion and claim that their daughter was told by a teacher that it was “a time for prayer.” The federal court however decided that the moment of silence is not explicitly religious and offers time to be quiet and prepare for the day as well as fostering patriotism (I guess you could be reflecting on the pledge you just said). Ultimately the courts ruled the Texas moment of silence constitutional, but the parents are still deciding on whether or not to appeal to the Supreme Court.
After a period of fierce anti-establishment rulings, the courts are beginning to find a balance. The never-ending question of how to protect the religious freedom of the people with out making others feel left out is still left up to debate. Most would agree that the state should not endorse a particular religion, but does this mean that any hint of religion needs to be stamped out. We forget that the state is made up of people. It is not some abstract entity that is able to be completely fair and unbiased. The people are the state and people have beliefs, the same way they have moral standards that stealing is wrong or ideologies such as believing that democracy is the best form of government. No matter how much anyone tries to remove these beliefs and be completely unbiased, it cannot happen. Our beliefs are who we are and splitting the two is not possible. That being said if the state is the people and people have beliefs then it only makes sense that the state will have these beliefs contained in it. Therefore trying to stamp out all religion from government is an impossible task. Does that mean the state should endorse religion? Of course not; the people who make up the state do not all believe the same thing. They all have beliefs but not the same ones.
The state contains many beliefs and the wording of the Texas moment of silence allows for the inclusion of these beliefs, even the Christian ones. I think the parents who sued the school are showing more discrimination than the school. The school is making an effort to include time for all ways of thinking and yes, to give the kids who want to pray the chance to do so. The parents are discriminating against the religious of the school, saying that the religious are below them and the student who chooses reflect instead of pray. They are on a witch hunt for anything they do not personally believe in. The children are not being forced to pray in the time given and since prayer is silent, no one know who is praying and who is not, therefore there is no alienation effect for those who choose not to pray. It seems to me that in this case the parents are blowing everything out of proportion. Making people feel discriminated against is bad but the inclusion of prayer in a list of options of activities does not seclude but include and in fact by forcing the schools to omit prayer as an option is discrimination in itself. State established religion is bad (and not present in this case), but restricting the free speech and free exercise of others is much worse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I agree with Christina that the moment of silence does not seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The state is not putting forth only one religion that all of the students must follow. Instead, they are simply providing time for reflection and prayer for those students who wish to participate. Following this line of thinking, it does seem that these parents do seem to be blowing the moment of silence out of proportion. On the other hand, I do not think it fair to completely dismiss these parents’ fears as unnecessary or unwarranted. In Texas, Christian fundamentalists hold a prominent role in the state’s actions, and this act could well be a way to circumvent the prohibition of state-sponsored prayer in public schools. I think it necessary for parents to question acts that could well discriminate against students’ beliefs systems. Even though the act does not explicitly propose one religion over others, the act could have the effect of discriminating against people who hold certain beliefs. It is important to question matters dealing with religion because discriminatory practices often result, even when discrimination is not the explicit intent.
In my schools, we had a moment of silence every day after the pledge, much like the policy in Texas. During this time, some prayed and some just sat quietly. Almost everyone in the class was religious, however, they did not pray during the moment of silence every day. There was no discrimination if someone chose not to pray. I think that the parents that are suing the school are being much more close minded and discriminatory than the school. It is contradictory to their argument to say that the school should outlaw any mention of prayer because it can be exclusive, when they are fighting to get rid of a policy that would discriminate towards those who are religious. I agree that religion should not be forced on anyone, but this is obviously not a strictly religious moment. I think those who are so quick to sue and complain are close minded. Who are they to say people cannot pray during a moment of silence when they are fighting to keep from being told how to handle religion?
Post a Comment