Let’s start by correcting the record. Regardless of what you may think, or what you may have been told, no court—federal or state—has ever ruled that you can’t pray in a government school. As someone once noted, as long as there are math tests there will be prayers in government schools. They’re permanent fixtures, like drug-sniffing dogs and locker searches.
What the courts have ruled is that government employees working in government institutions cannot lead children—who, by the way, are trapped in those institutions by compulsory attendance laws—in government-prescribed religious observances.
Here’s the trouble: According to the school prayer lovers, if you don’t think our children should engage in a daily prayer in our government schools, you must be a horn-sprouting Jesus-hating heathen with a standing appointment at the fires of hell—a date that can’t come soon enough for the make-’em-pray crowd.
Then again, the other side’s not much better. If you do approve of prayer in our government schools, these types see you as a toothless, religious, snake-handling zealot with huge hair and plastic slipcovers on your furniture who speaks in tongues (tall? venti? grande?) to the poor girl at the Starbucks drive-through.
This whole controversy started with the United States Supreme Court’s decision Engle v. Vitale (not Dick) in 1962. The New York State Board of Regents, which runs the state’s government schools, adopted a policy on moral and spiritual training in government schools in the late 1950s. One component of that policy was this prayer, to be recited by government school students:
Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.
Along come the puddin’-stirring squad, in the form of the Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9 in Hyde Park. The board took it upon themselves to instruct all principals to make sure that the prescribed prayer was recited by the students every day in class. It didn’t take long before a group of parents were marching off to the local courthouse to file their lawsuits. They based their case, of course, on the provision in the First Amendment that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
The local state court ruled against the parents, as did the New York Court of Appeals. So off to the U.S. Supreme Court they went!
The Board of Education, joined by other proponents of prayer in the schools, argued that no child was compelled to recite the prayer. The students were free to leave the room, or to stand there with their mouths shut.
You’d think these professional educators would have known a little more about the social dynamics of schoolchildren. Show me a child who leaves the classroom every day when the mandatory prayer is being recited, and I’ll show you a child who’s tormented endlessly by his classmates. In case it’s somehow escaped your attention, young children can be cruel; all it would take is a few mornings spent waiting outside while his fellow classmates recited the mandated daily prayer in unison to start a chain of events that would make that child’s life miserable for years.
As you might suspect, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the parents—that is, against a policy of government-ordered school prayer. This was the moment when, according to many Americans, God was taken out of our classrooms. It’s a shame, isn’t it, that such people are convinced that God needs a mandatory government permission slip to make His presence felt in a classroom (or anywhere, for that matter)?
In the Court’s majority opinion, Justice Hugo Black wrote that governments (and that means government schools) can’t create “official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by the government.”
Just what part of that doesn’t make sense to you? Put your emotions aside for a moment. Do you really support the idea that the government should be leading children, who are bound by compulsory attendance laws, in a religious observance designed by the government?
Well…strangely enough, some people believe just that. Since the Supremes’ decision in 1962, there have been attempts all over the country, at the state and local level, to reintroduce prayer in the schools. Some officials have attempted to circumvent the Court’s decision, and our Constitution, by instituting “moments of silence.” Others have referred to the prayer as a brief meditation. As fast as the ideas are run up the flagpole, the courts knock them down.
But that’s history. I’m more interested in the principle of the thing. The whole “prayer in the schools” movement starts to unravel—starts to look, perhaps, a little sinister—when you really try to explore the proponents’ motives. Just why is it so important to them that prayer sessions be returned to government schools? Ask them, and I’m sure they would tell you that they’re doing it for their children. But is that really the case?
Let’s say you have two grade-school children. Let’s further stipulate that you are abusing those children (by sending them off to the government to be educated, that is). Now you start insisting that they be led in prayer in those schools every day. Why? Is this something that’s neglected at home?
No, you say. You’re a devout Christian. That’s great—you’re to be admired. Other than the child abuse thing, I’m sure you live your life in an exemplary manner. I’m sure the families up and down your block are lining up at your front door for family-living-in-purity lessons.
But just who are you pushing this prayer-in-schools thing for, anyway? Correct me if I’m wrong, but can’t you pray with your children pretty much whenever you want? Can’t you pray with them every morning when they awake? If you were so inclined, couldn’t you have another prayer over breakfast, another prayer as they collect their schoolbooks, and yet another as they walk out the front door? Couldn’t you walk your children to the bus stop and pray as the loser cruiser2 approaches? (Considering some of the people they have driving those things, that might not be such a bad idea.) Then, once your children get home, can’t you pray with them over their homework, before they go out to play, and again at dinner? And couldn’t you lead them in a final rousing rendition of “Now I lay me down to sleep…” before the little rug rats crawl into bed?
Is the light bulb starting to come on? Are you starting to get a little uncomfortable with this line of reasoning?
Ah-ha! You got it! Of course those kids can get all the prayer they want. That’s not what their parents are worried about.
For the zealots who are trying to make prayer another part of the day’s activities at your government school, it’s not about their children—it’s about your children! They know that their kids are going to get every bit as much exposure to religion and prayer as they want them to. Why should they worry about cramming prayers into school hours, when they control the kids’ lives every hour they’re at home, and every Wednesday night they can haul them off to the local parish hall to suck down a spaghetti dinner? When it comes to their own children’s religious upbringing, these parents aren’t the least bit deterred by what happens in their local government schools. And this is all to the good—their children are probably better off for their parents’ involvement in their spiritual life.
Ahhh. But when it comes to your children, things are a little different.
Fundamentalist Christians are desperate to save your little tykes’ souls, by whatever means necessary. But they can’t force you to take your children to Sunday school or church every Sunday. You’re unlikely to commit your child to a plate of spaghetti every Wednesday night with a stranger. You might even decide to defy God by sending your children to soccer camp in the summer, instead of sending them to summer Bible schools, as God clearly intended. And it goes without saying that they can’t force you to pray with your children in the privacy of your own home. So what’s left?
Well, here’s an idea: Since it’s impossible to get to your children when they’re under your care and control, why not wait until they’re under someone else’s care and control—at the local government school?
So here’s the theory I propose: The prayer-in-school proponents out there are merely looking for a way to use the government to present religious theory to your child. Those who don’t see that as an abominable violation of the spirit of the First Amendment are either lying, or lacking a basic capacity for logical thought.
By the way, you’ll note that my argument rests on one simple core idea: I don’t believe it’s our government’s place to instruct or indoctrinate our children in any specific world religion—which, in our country, tends to be Christianity. In the eyes of many, this will make me anything from a heretic to a simple Christian-basher. (There’s that word “bash” again…always trotted out when the facilities for logical conversation fail us.)
On the other hand…
I believe the courts were right in turning down organized daily religious observances in government schools. But we’ve clearly gone too far in our efforts to completely remove all references to religion from education.
I believe that our children would be well served by a good basic course in comparative religions in our schools. As some of you may have noted, we’re having a bit of a problem with some of the world’s other major religions. It might be a good idea if our young children were given an honest and unbiased lecture on the fundamental differences between Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and a few other major religions before they start developing their own prejudices.
But guess who would scream the loudest if such a program were started? Yup, you got it. The very same people who want Christian prayers said in our government schools every day.
There’s also nothing wrong with students professing their own religious devotion in a school setting. If religious faith is important to that student, then recognizing and understanding that faith is an important part of getting to know that student.
Brittany McComb was the 2006 valedictorian at Foothills High School in Las Vegas, Nevada. Her valedictorian status afforded her the opportunity to make the valedictory address at graduation. Brittany was a devout Christian, which is good. She wanted to share her faith with her classmates during her speech, which is also good.
She never got the chance.
Brittany had to submit her 750-word speech to school officials before the graduation ceremony. When school officials saw that Brittany actually referenced her love of God in her speech, they got out their red pencils. Brittany’s speech was heavily edited to remove most of her references to her faith.
Brittany was not to be intimidated. She was determined to share her feelings with her graduating class. This was not the school speaking, this was Brittany McComb. This wasn’t an expression of the school’s feelings, these were her feelings—the feelings of a teenager going through an important transition in her life.
What Brittany didn’t know was that in the back of the auditorium, some school official had a copy of her speech in one hand and his other hand on the microphone switch. When it became clear to the official school censor that Brittany was actually going to say the “C” word, he was ready: Just as Brittany prepared to say the word “Christ,” her microphone went dead.
That was it. End of speech.
I’m pleased to report that the graduates and their families were less than thrilled. The booing went on for several minutes. Good for them.
The story of Brittany McComb illustrates two things: the inherent stupidity and irrationality of government, and the problems that inevitably arise when you entrust your child’s education to that government.
This kind of thing makes me almost apologetic for my stance on prayer in the schools, because I realize that there’s an all-out assault on Christianity being waged in our country. I’m so sick to death of “Happy Holidays” and “holiday trees” that I could scream. One school in the northeast had to reinvent its “Breakfast with Santa” fund-raiser when a woman (who would have guessed it?) called to complain that Santa was a religious figure and the school was promoting Christianity. “Breakfast with Santa” became “Breakfast with Frosty.”3
And the absurdities never stop. This past Christmas season, one local government permitted manger scenes to be installed in a government park—but without Joseph, Mary, or Baby Jesus. Just some sheep and goats and a bit of straw scattered around. When asked about the absence of the central figures in the story of Christmas, a government official said that it was really just a “desert scene,” and that people should “use their imaginations.”
Then there’s Chicago. Every year there’s a Christmas festival in Chicago known as the Christkindlmarket. I don’t speak German, but I believe that this loosely translates to “Christ Child Market.” In 2006, New Line Cinema paid about twelve thousand dollars to be one of the sponsors of the festival and for the privilege of having a booth on-site. As luck would have it, New Line had a newly released motion picture running at the time called The Nativity Story. New Line was planning to play trailers for the film in their booth.
No way.
Some official with the Mayor’s Office of Special Events told New Line that it couldn’t display the Nativity Story trailers on the TVs in their booth. After all…someone might be offended!
As the days passed and the controversy grew, officials from the mayor’s office scrambled for new excuses. On one day they said the display was too commercial. Then, when it was pointed out that other sponsors included corporate brands like Mercedes-Benz and Lufthansa, they changed their story: Now the film clips were “too aggressive.”
One blogger on the website Chicagoist reasoned that sooner or later “we [could] expect another city official to clarify that their real problem with the ad is its portrayal of immaculate conception outside of the bonds of holy matrimony. This announcement will be followed by a press conference on Friday from the Board of Health, reminding all Chicagoans that they should avoid giving birth in mangers with cows and sheep, as they provide for unsanitary birthing conditions.”
I could easily fill a few hundred pages with examples of ill-advised government attacks, if you will, on the Christian faith in recent years. We’ll let someone else write that book.
Still, I can’t help pointing out that in many instances, devoutly religious Christians have brought much of this upon themselves. Many Americans have come to see the demand for prayer in school as a none-too-subtle attempt to move toward government recognition of Christianity as our “official” state religion. And they’re right: mandating prayer in government schools would be a step in that direction.
But allowing a valedictorian to mention her faith in Christ in her speech, or New Line Cinema to run trailers of their movie about the Nativity during a Christmas festival—that’s a different story. Those are matters of free speech.
And anyone who can’t tell the difference might do themselves good by picking up a copy of the Bill of Rights once they’re done with their next Bible study group.
Of course, I know I’m never going to win everyone over. Take Andy, for instance:
Subject: oops!
Name: Andy ______
E-mail: ***********@********
NEAL: You need to get off your damn soap box against the Christian Religious Right. I am getting sick of your atheism. I called my local radio station that carries your show to complain and I was told they have already had numerous complaints on you already today. You have crossed the line! You are on your way out. You need to take lessons from Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pope Benedict XVI, Dr. James Kennedy, Billy Graham, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Stephen Baldwin, Bill O’Reilly—oops—too late. You are gone and so is your “unfair” tax.
Well, he certainly told me, didn’t he?