Can I pray in my moment of silence?

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.

The Classic Church/State Debate: Faith-Based Initiative Style

The nonprofit organizations that make up the faith-based initiative took in 10.6 billion dollars during the Bush administration. An article in the Washington Post, Faith-Based Office To Expand Its Reach, records Obama’s plan for the growth of the faith based offices. The change will include allowing for the faith based group’s input in policy decisions, a power not given to them in the Bush administration. The focus of this group has shifted into interfaith relations, strengthening the family, and reducing the number of abortions while pushing civil rights issues to “later times”. There seems to be a broad issue that arises with an expanded faith based office; the line between church and state.

The article states that currently faith-based groups can receive funding to hire members of their own faith but the Obama administration says that these issues will be reviewed on a case by case basis as problems arise. These groups are part of the faith-based team collected together in order to help social welfare programs funded by the government. One the one hand, someone might claim that by allowing this discrimination in hiring that is connected to the government is unconstitutional based on laws against discrimination in the workplace. Also, to allow it would be blurring the line between church and state. But I think that if the government is going to bring faith-based organizations into the government, then the leaders of these religious groups should be allowed to hire those who hold the same beliefs as themselves. To require a religious organization to hire people of different faiths would be an insult to the beliefs held by the organization and the people it represents. For organizations that hold such strong principles such as religious ones, asking them to overlook what they see to be fundamental truths and requirements is offensive to what they believe. By this forced hiring you are trying to take the religion out of religious groups and therefore out of the government which cannot be done; you cannot deny that religious organizations are religious and therefore it is obvious that religion is undeniably intermingled with the government for as long of this faith-based initiative is in effect. The claim by the religious is that the government is not able to tell people they cannot share their faith with others (claiming freedom of expression and religion) and that sharing their religious teachings could help the organizations reduce poverty and the number addicted to drugs.

The truth is this: the government is contributing money that eventually leads to the advancement of religion. The only question is, is it acceptable? I think that the good done by the faith based nonprofits through the faith-based initiative outweighs the potential harm regarding the separation of church and state. The court case, Zelman v Simmons-Harris, upholds my stance. The court allowed for the giving of school vouchers to students in poor performing schools to attend private religious schools. That decision was made because the law itself was meant to help the children receive a better education, a secular purpose even though government money was eventually going to the instruction of religious principles. The faith-based initiative program is meant to help the poor and underprivileged in society even though it also leads to religious instruction. It is completing its secular purpose and should therefore be allowed to stay.

If there are people who do not want the government paying for the exclusive hiring of these organizations or the advancement effects of the monetary support, making them hire people of diverse believes is not the answer. If it is an issue, the only real solution would be to not have these faith-based offices at all. Either let them stay as they are, keeping the principles they have intact, or eliminate them, there is no halfway option.

Obama claims that his decision to expand the offices will not “blur” the line between church and state, and it obvious that even the very existence of the organization has done that.

Abuse or Experience of God?

While there have been several cases in the news lately of religious cults sexually abusing minors, one of them is thirty miles from my parents’ house and my high school. In the attached article it describes a scenario where a cult leader, Wayne Bent, also known as Michael Travesser, has been arrested for laying naked with minor girls. Bent and his group of about 60 followers live in encampment in rural northeastern New Mexico, where Bent is their spiritual leader. In fact Bent believes that he is the Messiah, and the second coming of Jesus, and his followers agree on this belief as well. Two young sisters both initially admitted to laying naked with Bent on his bed, and that he touched and kissed their breasts. Later they denied that there was anything illegal in the encounters, and one girl reported that he kissed her clavicle not her breast. In an interview with the girls on National Geographic’s “Inside a Cult,” the girls spoke enthusiastically about the encounter and indicated that they found called to lay with their leader and felt it was a spiritual experience – the will of God. It does not appear that they were forced to do so, but came to him in their own free will. However perhaps because the allegations came to light shortly after the more famous case in Texas where many children were removed from a cult due to other sexual allegations, charges were filed. The charges filed against Bent include, 2 counts of criminal sexual contact with a minor, and contributing to a delinquency of a minor. Several times since the charges were filed Bent has stopped eating food and on occasion has even refused juice or water. He has stated that he will continue this fast barring an intervention from God or a dismissal of charges. Bent and his followers, which are now down to 45 adults, expected to ascend to Heaven the past two Halloweens. The trial was scheduled for November, but now has been moved out of Union County after his attorney argued he would not be able to receive an impartial jury.
Wayne Bent did break the law, and the charges being brought against him are valid. To me criminal sexual conduct does not have a defense. Some might argue that this incident happened in a spiritual manner and should be protected by free exercise. However I feel that these matters definitely cross a line. Cult leaders have a significant amount of power and control in general, but also concerning sexual matters. As a leader he was responsible for the breakup of marriages among some of his believers, taking sexual control over other man’s wives. He even slept with his own daughter in-law, and she did not believe that this was wrong, but was glad that she “consummated with him. While the sexual acts with adults may be legal, they certainly are alarming. However when it deals with sexual control over minors, matters are more serious and become illegal. Yes the girls may have claimed to do so under their own free will, however if it weren’t for his teachings they never would have done so. This is one of those areas where the well-being of minors takes precedence over any manner of free expression. The law is in place to protect minors from sexual acts of any nature from adults, and especially from those who may have undue influence over them – like parents or spiritual leaders – and so it must be taken very seriously, and invoked in any situation. Even if it were a spiritual act, which I highly doubt, the girls should at least be of age before invoking their right of free expression. I am glad the charges have been pressed, and I will be interested in seeing how the case is decided. I also wonder how much of a difference the change of venue will make, considering the new jury will know there were reasons for the trial to be moved, but I definitely agree that the jury would have been biased in Union County.


http://www.abqjournal.com/north/211129306943north10-21-08.htm

Polygamy? Pahleeze!

In an AP story, (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6077871.html) Brock Vergakis writes about the Attorney General race in Utah. The race, according to this article, has mostly been defined by people asking the candidates questions about their views on polygamy. Around 37,000 polygamists live in the west, most of them in Utah. Because of the raids on a polygamist community in Texas earlier this year, the interest in how Utah will treat polygamists has grown. Despite the fact that Utah has bigamy laws (a requirement for statehood back in the 1890's) the only cases that are tried are those that regard spousal or child abuse. Shurtleff, the current AG of Utah, says that "If we were to go out and start arresting every couple, every adult consenting to polygamy, then we would have to build thousands of jail beds. How are we possibly going to take those kids into custody? The costs are astronomical. The resources aren't there." Shurtleff's competitor, however, has a different view of why polygamy cases shouldn't be tried in Utah. Hill claims that Lawrence v. Texas, a case struck down a Texas sodomy law, on the grounds that the state has no justifiable interest intruding into the private lives of consenting adults creates a precedent that makes polygamy permissible. "Our bigamy law still stands, but frankly, it's indefensible based on that ruling," Hill said. "You can prosecute for forced marriages, but to actively prosecute a polygamist for being a polygamist? You're not going to succeed." What's interesting is that in 1878 (yeah, 1878) the United States Supreme Court upheld the law the outlawed polygamy citing a "compelling state interest" to maintain morals. Although the precedent set in Reynolds has long been abandoned, it seems that the decision is still relevant to this discussion. What rights do individuals have under the auspices of religion? The Court in Reynolds held that the state had the right to maintain moral standards but Lawrence declared that the state shouldn't intrude into the private lives of adults. Obviously, bigamy laws in Utah have no enforcement mechanism, but this shouldn't simply mean that the intention of the law is disregarded. Hill seems to believe that polygamy is a fundamental right, but she ignores the fact that women who are part of a polygamous marriage are often socialized in such a way that they may not even understand they have a right to resist such a situation. Believing something has never meant full protection under the first amendment and countless Court cases have proven that. Polygamy is outlawed and those laws should be enforced. By allowing polygamy to continue, Utah is not only allowing their laws to be openly mocked, but is also allowing the propagation of a religion that objectifies women and socializes children in the most perverse of ways.