Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You may remember this case in Tennessee, which I've written about several times. A group calling themselves the Praying Parents were given all sorts of access to a public school, including being allowed to go into classrooms and give out stickers to kids saying they've been prayed for. They were also allowed to promote themselves to students in ways that no other group was allowed to do. A federal judge has ruled against the school in a suit filed by the ACLU on behalf of a student at the school. See full ruling here.
Interestingly, two of the Praying Parents actually filed a motion to intervene in this case and it was granted (the case was filed against the school for allowing them that access, since they are the only ones who can violate the constitution, not the parents). And this one statement by one of the Praying Parents leaps out of the ruling:
Walker is a Christian who believes it is important to communicate her faith and live it privately and publicly. She believes that Lakeview teachers who are Christian should be allowed to live out their faith in front of their students; in other words, teachers should be allowed to exhibit kindness and courtesy, smile, and "have a light about them that comes from their faith in all walks of life. They should not have to cut that off when they walk into the school doors."
Apparently she believes that only Christians smile and show kindness and courtesy and that they have some special glow that identifies them. That's quite a ridiculous delusion. And here's another Praying Parent:
Gold is a Christian who believes that prayer is an important component of her faith and, like Walker, she believes that it is important for Christians to participate in their children's education and communicate their faith to their children and to others.
Communicate your faith all you want to you own children; leave other people's children out of it unless they give you permission to do it. And you never have that permission in a public school.
There were many ways this group had access that no other group had. After their meetings they would freely walk into the teacher's lounge and leave cards in the mailboxes of all the teachers they had prayed for. They were allowed to place explicitly Christian articles ("Prayer Makes a Difference!") in the PTO newsletter, which was an official school publication sent home with the kids every month.
The school also had a Ten Commandments display outside the school office, something forbidden by Supreme Court ruling, and allowed the Gideons to hand out Bibles to kids during a history class. And at one point, at least, a third grade teacher led her class in prayer, something also forbidden by law. This was a pretty easy case, all in all.
Politics
Comments
From the Dictionary of the Religious Right:
Pray, v., (PRAY)
1. To display one's piety publicly
2. To inform an omniscient being of how great you think he is
3. To inform God that the outcome of your action is in his hands, thereby absolving oneself of blame should things go wrong
4. To create an atmosphere of discomfort and ostracization for those heathens who do not pray
Posted by: Wes | June 3, 2008 9:44 AM
I never had a taste for Lenny Flank's tactics, but I have to admit he was right about one thing. When it comes to these types of cases (and, similarly, anti-evolution cases) the best approach to dealing with these types of folks is to just give them a soapbox and a microphone. Within a few minutes, they will shoot themselves in the foot.
Posted by: carlsonjok | June 3, 2008 9:44 AM
"Praying parent" => "Praying Mantis"
Does anyone else see this analogy?
Posted by: Kim | June 3, 2008 10:12 AM
See Matthew 6, verses 5 and 6:
As long as these hypocrites believe that it is their religious duty to be sanctimonious, judgmental, obnoxious busybodies, they will complain that keeping them from preaching is a violation of their religious freedom.
Posted by: BaldApe | June 3, 2008 10:16 AM
The thing that strikes me most about these parents' comments is the air of completely unacknowledged privilege-- "All I want to do is be a good Christian, share my love with the world, bring hope to other people...what could be wrong with that?" Well, nothing, except that that's not all they want. They either refuse or are unable to consider that bringing love and hope to the world is not part of some kind of exclusively Christian package. "Jesus loves you" is absolutely no kind of consolation to a person who doesn't worship Jesus, whereas "I care about you" is universal. It's a very kind of selfish caring that demands people share your faith in order to receive it.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 3, 2008 10:30 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | June 3, 2008 11:09 AM
Gretchen is dead on.
Change that quoted paragraph from the story to:
...and wait for the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Cheers.
Posted by: FastLane | June 3, 2008 11:09 AM
Um, in my prior post, it should be "hell, yeah, they should be allowed to exhibit those qualities," not, "hell, yeah, they should have to cut if off..."
Posted by: James Hanley | June 3, 2008 11:12 AM
ya, I also see no problem with a teacher exhibiting courtesy and kindness to their students. I have great problems with anyone thinking that those two charachter traits should be turned off *anywhere*, let alone because you have Faith(tm) and have walked into a public space. Tell me again where in the Bible Jesus said to be kind only to them who are kind to you... I thought he said the opposite...
Posted by: kodiak | June 3, 2008 11:38 AM
Thank you for pointing this out Gretchen. I'm reminded of a developmental psychology study in which the researcher sits with a young child of either 14 months or 18 months. Before them are two plates, one with children's crackers and the other with a bunch of broccoli florets. The children had previously sampled each and almost universally liked the crackers and hated the broccoli. The researcher would, in front of the child, eat a cracker and make a yuck face. They would then eat a piece of broccoli and make a yummy face. (There was also a control group where they did the opposite.)
The researcher would hold their hand and ask for more and observed what the child chose to give them. The 14 month olds had a strong tendency (90%) to give the crackers. They didn't seem to be capable of conceiving that someone else's tastes differed from their own. But by 18 months they tended (70%) to give the researcher broccoli. At just a year and a half old they'd learned and were able to accept that others have different views from their own.
Is it really too much to expect that people show the emotional development of an 18 month old child?
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 3, 2008 11:42 AM
Abby, I sense a thesis project in this. "Failure of the Theory of Mind faculty: the case of the proselytizing parents," or "The error of 'Do unto others' in the presence of differing emotional preferences."
Posted by: Gretchen | June 3, 2008 12:03 PM
I want to hear more about these glowing christians, are they radioactive? does the school have facilities to treat radiation sickness?
Posted by: matt | June 3, 2008 12:13 PM
Like this?
Posted by: noncarborundum | June 3, 2008 12:41 PM
Gretchen, consider your first comment here shamelessly stolen, to used elsewhere, frequently. If you provide your name somewhere, I'll gladly credit you with it.
Posted by: BobApril | June 3, 2008 1:21 PM
There is an irony about their behaviour, the may not have considered. From the Project Gutenberg version of Matthew:
"6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are:
for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of
the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They
have their reward."
Posted by: UKGP | June 3, 2008 1:31 PM
BobApril, you're welcome to use it if you find it applicable elsewhere. My full name is Gretchen Koch, though I won't be piqued or anything if you don't cite me. ;-)
Posted by: Gretchen | June 3, 2008 1:41 PM
Not only is there the bigoted implication here that only Christians exhibit kindness and courtesy, but I think this takes the Persecution Complex to new heights.
"Help! Help! The Secularists are trying to stop us leading prayers in school! Soon they will be trying to prevent us from praying in our own homes, and jackbooted thugs will storm our living rooms looking for contraband Bibles! Why, even looking happy will be forbidden, because it will remind the mean, perpetually grumpy Secularists that we have Jesus in our hearts! The Secularists will not stop till they remove all traces of God from everything!!! No more smiling!!!
For crying out loud...
Posted by: Sastra | June 3, 2008 2:20 PM
UKGP, a quibble: there is no "Project Gutenberg version of Matthew". There are numerous translations of Matthew, a number of which can be found at Project Gutenberg. The one you quoted is the King James version, but Gutenberg also has Douay-Rheims, the World English Bible, Lightheart (whatever that is), and versions in Swedish, Danish and Spanish.
Posted by: noncarborundum | June 3, 2008 4:10 PM
Check out this response from Focus on the Family at Citizenlink.org:
Good News: Tennessee Court Upholds Religious Liberties
A Tennessee court has refused to cave in to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which sought to ban religious expression at a Nashville public school.
The ACLU sued Wilson County public schools, claiming they violated the constitution by allowing student prayer events, National Day of Prayer observances and the celebration of religious holidays. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) represented parents.
"The court acknowledged that Christians cannot be discriminated against for their beliefs, and that personal prayer, mentions of God and Christmas references are constitutionally appropriate in school," ADF Senior Counsel Nate Kellum said. "The ACLU hoped to wipe out every reference to God."
Posted by: wrpd | June 3, 2008 5:23 PM
The Alliance Defence Fund website alliancedefencefund.org has more about their "victory".
Posted by: wrpd | June 3, 2008 5:57 PM
@ noncarborundum: You're quite right. I always forget there are other versions; I just searched PG for the Authorised Version, which sounds the best when you read it. As I come to believe it less, I read it more, for some reason. Please read above "The Gutenberg version of the Authorised Version" for what I said.
Posted by: UKGP | June 3, 2008 6:10 PM
These aren't "Praying Parents" - they're "Preying Parents" who feel completely justified in forcing other people's kids to go along with their own particular brand of religiosity.
Posted by: Cheryl Shepherd-Adams | June 3, 2008 7:14 PM
Being a U.S.-based organization, the ADF spells it "Defense" not "Defence". Thus the correct URL is alliancedefensefund.org
Posted by: noncarborundum | June 3, 2008 8:33 PM
Thanks, noncarb
Posted by: wrpd | June 3, 2008 9:05 PM
Jeez. You Brits don't even know how to spell your own damn language. :P
Posted by: Wes | June 3, 2008 9:50 PM
I was born and raised in Illinois. I guess it's a result of living in California too long.
Posted by: wrpd | June 4, 2008 12:20 AM
Sastra writes:
Why, even looking happy will be forbidden, because it will remind the mean, perpetually grumpy Secularists that we have Jesus in our hearts! The Secularists will not stop till they remove all traces of God from everything!!! No more smiling!!!
Don't be silly: we all smile a lot when we watch our dark prince, John Stewart.
I suppose, though, that those aren't true smiles, but only the dark grim rictus of --- oh, the hell with it. How DO they keep a straight face writing this stuff?
Posted by: Josh Hayes | June 4, 2008 2:00 AM
Let us prey..............
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 4, 2008 12:27 PM
Nice post!
Posted by: Anon | June 4, 2008 7:50 PM