Feb 16, 2009
School Prayer
On January 21, a federal judge in Chicago ruled that a ‘moment of silence’ law was unconstitutional. The law mandated that public school students observe a daily moment of silence, for “silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.” Full text of the decision here.
Naturally, Christianists are up in arms, saying that this is another attempt by a minority of secular-progressives to push their radical separation of church and state agenda on the embattled theist majority. However, the judge had a very interesting take on the statute:
The Statute violates this [the second prong of the Lemon test] because it prefers some religions over others. It is firmly established that “[n]either a state nor the Federal Government . . . can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”
…[T]he ACLU has identified a number of religious practices that are neither silent nor still…
…These includes [sic] certain Jewish traditions, Muslim prayers that require a variety of postures and gestures including bowing and prostration, Native American religions and Krishna Hinduism.
Practitioners of these religions would, apparently, be excluded from praying according to their faith during the “period of silence.”
In other words, a moment of silence could be utilized by Christian children for prayer in school, but would by definition preclude the prayer rituals of other religions, and is therefore a ‘religious preference’ of the state — Christian children may participate in semi-organized prayer during school hours, while others may not.
What’s interesting is how the defenders of the statute want to portray its opponents: as bloodthirsty secularists who will attack something as simple as a moment of silence if there are intimations of religiosity associated therewith.
It’s telling that the people who are most outraged by this ruling are Christians. If it were an innocuous ‘moment of silence’ as they claim, they would have as much to lose as an atheist. The reality, which the judge was apt to point out, is that the statute was a deliberately underhanded attempt to surreptitiously slip prayer back into the public school system — and surprise, surprise somebody finally caught on.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
So now we get to listen to Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh drone on and on about how this is a Christian nation*, and how our morals come from god because the forefathers wrote in the Constitution that god endowed us with inalienable rights†, and that they wrote his name on our money and into the Pledge of Allegiance‡, and blah, blah blah.
I don’t in principle have a problem with god’s name popping up everywhere — he’s kind of our mascot, like the San Diego Chicken — but the moment these things are used as evidence that we have a national religion, or that I am less of a patriot because I am an atheist, then I want it off the money, and out of the schools and courtrooms, and stricken from the Pledge.
*See the Treaty of Tripoli, article 11.
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen…”
† Actually, that was in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is an explicitly secular document by design.
‡ There was no ‘In God We Trust’ on our money, or ‘under god’ in the Pledge until the 50’s. Look it up.
I like that you’ve made god analogous to the Chicken!