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.

Establishment Clause and Ingaugural Prayers

In his article, “Obama’s Inaugural Save”, Derrick Jackson discusses Obama’s choice to pick Gene Robinson to give a prayer at the pre-inauguration celebration. He thinks it was a great and necessary decision on the part of Obama because it is an inclusive choice. Not only will this pick help placate some of the people upset with Warren’s invitation, it will also lead to an inclusive prayer. He was angered by Franklin Graham’s praying “in the name of the Father and of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ” at the 2001 inauguration. Jackson thinks any prayer which focuses on one religion is infringing on the separation of church and state. Because of this, any prayer in a government sponsored event should have a vague if existent reference to religion. He is happy with Robinson’s selection as the bishop agrees with this sentiment and will pray to “the God of our many understandings.”

I think that in this situation, it should be a personal decision by the president-elect. I do not think a prayer at an inauguration qualifies as violating the establishment clause. The reason for its inclusion in the Constitution was to avoid the situation which Britain faced with a national religion. This national religion was forced upon the citizens. One prayer at an inauguration does not force anything upon our citizens and will win no converts. The government and now president Obama had no goal to convert watchers to their preferred religion. If a president elect chose a Muslim or Jewish to give a prayer, my opinion would be the same. I would still think the constitutional right to not have the government sponsor a religion was being upheld.

Wald & Calhoun Brown discusses the 59% of America who say religion is very important to them. I also think this group should not get upset about any inaugural prayers. Here, I agree with Jackson and Robinson who doubt the prayer’s ability to "save" the viewer. The bottom line is that the establishment clause was made and should remain a protection against serious attempts to nationalize a religion by the government. We should not worry about trivial questions such as this.