Several people emailed me about what happened over the weekend at Russell County High School in Kentucky. There was apparently a tradition there for the students to elect a "graduation chaplain" to hold a Christian prayer at the graduation ceremony, with the full cooperation of the school. But this year, a Muslim student filed suit to stop that tradition and a judge issued an injunction against it. So instead, in the middle of the principal's opening remarks, 200 students stood up, interrupted the proceedings, and recited the Lord's prayer, prompting a standing ovation from most of those in attendance. That act received praise from the school principal and superintendant.
Russell County School Superintendent Scott Pierce called himself a "person of faith" and said he was pleased with the response to the ruling by the senior class.
"This was a good learning process for them as far as how to handle things that come along in life," Pierce said. The response of the students showed an ability to be "critical thinkers."
"They exhibited what we've tried to accomplish in 12 years of education - they have the ability to make these compelling decisions on their own," Pierce said.
But the reaction didn't stop there. The other students also booed the student who brought the suit as he received his diploma and walked across the stage. I'm sure much worse has been said to the student around the school and the town and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he and his family have received death threats; they seem to go with cases like this.
Now, whether the judge's ruling was correct or not is not the issue here; it's a close call from a con law standpoint. But with all of the fervent cheering going on for these kids on the right side of the internet, I must dissent. I think what they did was act like a bully. On the religionlaw listserv, one enthusiastic supporter of action praised kids for celebrating "the spirit of liberty". David Guinn of Baylor law school gave what seems to me to be the perfect response. He wrote:
First, the students (as approved by Prof. Duncan) are using prayer not as a religious devotion but as a political act -- to express their disapproval of the one student and the "unelected judiciary" and as a weapon against others that don't share in that faith. That strikes me as sacralege as well as a perversion.
Second, why is it necessary to make these prayers public in a public forum? This sounds a little too much like the hypocrites of Mt. 6:5 If it is a matter of needing community, why not a community made up of fellow believers rather than demanding the audience of those who might not believe (or believe as they do)?
While it may be "their" commencement, it is also the commencement of all of the other students and their families present. Should everyone be allowed to interrupt the service and impose their religious exhortation on everyone else?
Graduations frequently involve not just commencement, but a series of celebrations over the course of the weekend. Why not reserve religious celebrations for a separate ceremony shared among their community of faith? The only justification I can come up with is the belief that their faith is so weak that it must be endorsed by the school in the public ceremony.
I find the whole thing offensive and sad.....
Me too, Professor Guinn; me too. I would like, just once, for a handful of Christian students to be in a predominately Muslim school and have to sit through exhortations and praising of Allah at such a ceremony. I suspect that the vast majority of the folks on the other side would change their minds quickly about such matters.
- Log in to post comments
There are no truer words than these.
I've gotten into discussions (well, I discuss; they yell) with the Stop the ACLU guys over such topics on many occasions, and they always come off as bullies. They have this tough-shit mentality that says they're going to push their religion on others, and if they don't like it, too bad. As long as the government doesn't make a law declaring Christianity the nation's official religion, you can mash church and state together all you want. "The myth of separation of church and state" they call it. Thomas Jefferson knew nothing of the Bill of Rights.
They're also fond of saying people like me are offended by their religion, which we're not. I'm just bothered by the fact that they're dicks about it.
Such nonsense as what these high schoolers did just cheapens religion even more. Government and religion are a whole lot more meaningful when they're restricted to their proper environments, but don't tell that to any evangelical Christian.
School prayer and Pledge of Allegiance cases always remind me of an interview I heard with Ernie Harwell years ago. He said - I'm paraphrasing - that he doesn't think the national anthem should be played before baseball games, because the song loses its meaning after it's played 15 times a night for six months straight. Once you've gone through the motions a few dozen times it's pretty much lost all of its intended meaning. Reciting the Pledge or offering up a prayer every day before school is just plain silly.
Capt. Rational,
That's why they play "God Bless America" on Sundays...to mix it up a bit with a meaningful song!
I wish I could hear "America the Beautiful" during the 7th inning stretch instead.
Ed wrote:
Would a predominantly Buddhist school do? I don't remember how I got this link, but I was shocked when I read it. Not shocked by the viewpoint, but shocked that I found a relatively reasonable and rational argument against school-sponsored prayer published in World Net Daily. The writer's experience allowed him to put himself in a non-Christian's shoes as a minority being unfairly marginalized in a predominantly Buddhist school in Hawaii. And he actually learned to appreciate our first amendment protections more.
Did I mention that this article was published in WORLD NET DAILY?? Like I said, shocking. Every time you get someone arguing for school or state-sponsored prayer, give them this link to refute the argument.
"They exhibited what we've tried to accomplish in 12 years of education - they have the ability to make these compelling decisions on their own," Pierce said.
Yes, they have been taught from birth that they have a right to bully others into religious observance. It's not about religion. It's about power. When they eliminate the words of Jesus from Christianity (do unto others, the meek shall inherit, pray in your closet, etc.) then what you have left is Christianism. Christianism is utterly hostile to democracy, is collectivistic and totalitarian.
Many Christians (and many Muslims as well) never consider walkng in another's shoes. Their view is decidedly a one way street. And very, very few have ever found themselves in the situation that the author of the article Big C referred to where the Christian is in the minority. Interestingly despite voicing deference to the court decision on church state relations, that author nonetheless derogatorily referred to the Buddhist prayers he had to listen to as "offensive" and "pagan". I guess he couldn't stomach the idea of extending to them the "respect" he and his ilk demand from non-Christians for their rituals and beliefs.
Or maybe John Lennon/Beatles' "Across the Universe"?
There's another similar case in Kentucky where a student filed a complaint about prayer at graduation and other school events. That school hasn't decided yet whether it will do the prayer. This state seems to want to get caught up in this sort of thing in the last year or so. I never thought of it as being that fundamentalist but I guess the revival hit here late. I still don't see anyone pushing for creationism, but that's probably next.
You don't see anyone pushing for creationism in Kentucky? The governor there has been pushing it for months now.
They use the Lord's Prayer to assault a non-Christian and they're proud of it. I see sins against both faith and charity here, but I harbor little hope that they'll realize how shallow their Christianity is. Did they remember to wear their "Bullies for Jesus" T-shirts?
Well, maybe except for these words:
"They're also fond of saying people like me are offended by their religion, which we're not. I'm just bothered by the fact that they're dicks about it."
I think those words are even truer because I suspect that the vast majority of the folks on the other side have already thought about what it would be like to be the minority, but they figure they are holier than thou - so although they might change their minds quickly about such matters if the shoe were on the other foot, they might be willing to make an exception when the shoe stays right there where it belongs, if you catch my drift. And besides, they have that one commandment thingy that says not to have any other gods before their god.
No, I forgot about that. That wasn't ideological though; that was nothing but a lame attempt to save his shambled political career. And as I can recall, it got virtually no reaction from the media or the public. Not that I would be surprised if schools started trying to implement it.
Dollars to donuts, had the moslem student at the ceremony stood up during an invocation by a Christian minister, and shouted out a moslem prayer, he'd have been arrested for disorderly conduct. To the cheers of the rest of the company assembled.
Russell County has Muslims? Whoda thunk?
For the record, Russell County is a tiny (pop. 16000 or so) rural county 90 miles south of Lexington. The folks there are 98% white, and it is a dry county, so you can deduce for yourself the political and theological stripes of Russell County. It is not that much different from many of the other 120 or so counties here in Kentucky, or most other states in the Midwest and Southeast. The fact that the students used the Lord's Prayer as a snark, and booed the student who filed suit, does not surprise me at all. Small towns, small minds ...
I applaud the courage of the student who filed the establishment suit. He apparently understands the US Constitution better than his "Christian" peers and his school administrators. Laws, what laws? We have God on our side ...
FYI, there is a similar case developing in Shelby County, which adjoins Jefferson County aka Metro Louissville. Link is here: http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/14644880.htm
The unspoken fear on their part is that while it's only a single moslem student this year, it'll be a Buddhist student the following year, and then two students, and then three ...
It's about maintaining power, and if you're loud and obnoxious enough, the "other" will simply move on to the next community.
I'm trying to figure out how belting out the Lord's Prayer in any way represents critical thinking or compelling decision-making. I never knew the term "critical thinking" was synonymous with "reactionary group behavior."
"I've gotten into discussions (well, I discuss; they yell) with the Stop the ACLU guys over such topics on many occasions, and they always come off as bullies..."
"Discussing" virtually anything with that fun bunch is akin to having a fireside chat with a Labrador retriever about global warming, save for the fact that the latter conversation nominally carries the potential for a certain level of unpredictablity. Anytime something like the Kentucky situation arises and Jay does his usual cut-and-paste job courtesy of Wingnut Daily, dissenting opinions are always met by the following statements from the resident hystericalati:
"America has Christain heritages and the ACLU wants to stamp it out with there sickle and hammer!"
2. "Show me where in the 1rst Amendmant it says no Kentucky schools can say prayers!"
3. "Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion, theres nothing in the constituiton saying you have no right to not be offended by religion."
4. "If the table was turned on the other foot I would have no problem with a Muslamic student reading from the Koran at my kids graduation." (Right, and if a giant chartruese platypus with a sadistic streak descended from the heavens in the next minute and tore my genitals clean off their moorings, I wouldn't mind a bit.)
I guess this is what it takes to defocus from the fact that a presidency only a third over is in a shambles. Either that or some people don't have the ability to examine more than one issue at a time, poorly or otherwise.
Is it really? The constitutional issue seems pretty clear-cut to me: neither a public school, nor any other arm of the government, can officially endorse any religious prayer at a state event. It doesn't matter whether a majority votes for it; the First Amendment prohibits it anyway. In much the same way, 51% of Americans could vote to make Christianity the official religion of the country, but that law would still be null and void.
The constitutional question here is fairly clear cut. Would the school have reacted in the same way if other students had started chanting a Wiccan spell during the assembly? My guess is no -- which should answer your questions easily.
If the superintendent doesn't punish these students as he would any other students who interrupted the assembly, then he is aiding and abetting -- and he should be found in contempt.
When they eliminate the words of Jesus from Christianity (do unto others, the meek shall inherit, pray in your closet, etc.) then what you have left is Christianism.
Correction: when they eliminate the words of Jesus from Christianity, what you have left is NOT "Christianism" -- it's Judaism. That's not a bad thing, of course, as long as we're honest about it.
Ebonmuse wrote:
The issue is not that clear cut. The Supreme Court has never ruled on student-led and student-initiated prayer, and whether this truly is such remains a mystery at this point. My understanding is that the students themselves elect a "graduation chaplain" from among their numbers; that sort of thing has not been tested in court before now, all the cases involve the school itself inviting clergy to deliver a prayer. So no, it's not as clear cut as one might think.
Correction: when they eliminate the words of Jesus from Christianity, what you have left is NOT "Christianism" -- it's Judaism. That's not a bad thing, of course, as long as we're honest about it.
Ok, hold on a second here. If that's "Judaism", then why is it Christians, rather than Jews that are the most vocal about this particular brand of religeon? If what you get is "Judaism" then it would stand to reason that the predominant religeous push would be by the bulk of the Jewish population, rather than the Christian one.
What's happening is a belief structure that cherry picks the sections of the bible that support an aggressive authoritarian political viewpoint (which pop up much more with an Angry Old-Testament smiting god), while ignoring the inconvenient portions that call for humility, charity, and dietary restrictions.
Ed: It seems to me at least that while the tradition of a graduation chaplain may have originated as a majoritarian impulse, once it gets included in the graduation schedule, it's being endordsed by the school itself.
Correction: when they eliminate the words of Jesus from Christianity, what you have left is NOT "Christianism" -- it's Judaism. That's not a bad thing, of course, as long as we're honest about it.
No, Judaism is not Christianity minus the words of Jesus. Judaism is Christianity, minus some of the words of Jesus (and including others but ascribing them to Hillel, one of the major influences on Jesus), PLUS all the parts of Jewish scriptures about love, forgiveness, community, equality, and the like that Christians claim are not actually there so that they can claim that they invented them so far as religion goes, plus a couple of thousand additional years of case law and commentary, most of which deals with how to live in the real world with as little shouting as possible.
I think there's probably a golden mean to be sought between the "I shouldn't have to hear someone else's prayers" stance and the "I will shout my prayers at you" stance.
Clearly, belting out a prayer in the middle of a ceremony as a statement of "You can't stop us" is not merely rude, but also unprayerful.
However, at the same time, it seems a bit hypersensitive to insist on never hearing prayers other than those of your own denomination. (Or never hearing prayers at all if you aren't religious.)
It seems like you should just plain expect to hear Islamic prayers if your in an Islamic majority situation, or Bhuddist prayers if you're in a Bhuddist majority situation. And certainly, I'm used to hearing Protestant prayers all the time since I live in a part of the country where Catholic are very much the minority among Christians.
However, while one should accept (and sit out if you don't like) a certain amount of public religiosity in certain environments, I do very much appreciate the constitutional protection from government imposition of religion. While it's one thing for your kid to be exposed to an occasional public prayer while in a school environment, it would be totally unacceptable for a public school to bring in the local preacher of the favored denomination and have him instruct all the kids in religion.
DarwinCatholic said:
Who's insisting on never hearing any prayers of other people? I think this is a straw man you've got here. If you're praying in a place, situation, or environment where you have every right to pray, then it's my tough luck if I happen to overhear you. What's at issue is me hearing your prayer at a ceremony that belongs to me as much as to you. When you interrupt it with your prayer, you are imposing on me and stealing a bit of my time in order to have your own beliefs endorsed. It's not hearing your prayer that bothers me, it is hearing it in an inappropriate venue that doesn't only belong to you.
I have to agree with WJD; I saw just that at local Memorial Day ceremonies. Although the town WAS pretty open about letting all of the local churches have a minister give a prayer, I felt one or two of them seriously overdid the god-talk. (I should say "established churches," b/c I know some in the area who are Pagan and other religions, or non-religious, and nobody asked them to participate.) In general, I have a problem with conflating a day that is about honoring soldiers' service to the NATION with any form of religion, and believe that if we had significantly LESS religion, there'd be far fewer people killed in wars.