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.

To Pray, or Not to Pray—That is the Question…

…whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the prayers and petitions of religiously inclined superiors, or to file lawsuit against this sea of troubles, and by opposing end them.
--Hamlet (sort of)

Three years after the Air Force Academy adopted new regulations to discourage public prayer at official events, other military academies are fielding complaints that their schools attempt to force religion onto students. Neela Banerjee reports for the New York Times that at the Naval Academy “nine midshipmen recently asked the American Civil Liberties Union to petition the school to abolish daily prayer at weekday lunch, where attendance is mandatory.” Several cadets from West Point have registered complaints about the former head of the academy, Maj. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, who invoked God and the Bible in his speeches to the cadets. The history of this conflict explains why the issue of religious activity in schools has become an aggressive, full-scale assault on both sides.

The landmark 1962 Supreme Court case which struck down prayer in public schools opened the door for legal action against public religious practices in other institutions. In his book With God On Our Side, William Martin details the rise of the religious right in American politics and notes that critics of the Supreme Court’s decision viewed it “as a declaration of war against Christianity, a conviction that has not diminished over time.” Conservative shock and anger at liberals for questioning established religious practices is evidenced by the reaction of Col. John J. Cook III, head chaplain at West Point. When questioned about West Point’s practice of praying before meals, he argues “this is something we have done in the military for centuries.” Noting that the military academies are schools where many students hold devout religious beliefs, he continues “It is not done to make people religious.” Non-religious students, however, still view it as oppressive. Martin notes that despite a 1982 attempt to pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect “individual or group prayer” in schools, over the years liberal lawsuits against public prayers and other religious activities have gradually transformed the public arena into a more religiously-neutral zone.

As courts continue to ban public religious practices based on petitions from a small group of people, conservatives have become irate over the court’s willingness to deny the majority’s opinion in order to acquiesce to the demands of a minority. A majority of students at the military academies do not object to mealtime prayer and Banerjee reports that West Point students surveyed at random reported they did not feel religion was forced upon them. Non-religious students counter that maintaining religious activities show favoritism to those with religious beliefs and therefore should not be permitted in public institutions. Based on historical precedent, it is likely mealtime prayer will be prohibited if the ACLU’S petition to the Naval Academy turns into a lawsuit. This conflict centers on two questions: is any form of public religious activity, even if it does not endorse a particular religion, discriminatory because it excludes those who do not hold any religious beliefs? Should the religious requests of a minority group supersede the religious requests of a majority, so as to ensure that the minority does not feel oppressed by the beliefs of the majority? It is unfortunate that any compromise appears to be unlikely, as each side will accept only the complete legal adoption of their viewpoint.