While I appreciate that some people have a need to worship, that need must
be balanced against the needs of people who have no such need or who want
to worship in another way. That is precisely the purpose of the First
Amendment of the American Constitution, of which I quote the relevant parts:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It is clear that the High School principal who made that speech (assuming
that this really happened) does not understand the principles embodied in
the Constitution or the derived principles found in American case law.
The amendment has two parts. The first part is often misunderstood. All it
really says is that Congress is not allowed to establish a state-sponsored
religion. An "establishment of religion" is a state church, and if Congress
is not allowed to make a law respecting a state church, then it cannot
establish one. That's all there is to it. Case law is a different story.
Case law, especially beginning in the 1940s, extended that simple idea to
the notion of "separation of church and state". Case law established the
principle that church and religious things must be separate from political
things, and that government must keep its hands off religion. That is not
what the Amendment said, but case law has extended the constitution in
many directions not envisioned by the founding fathers.
The second part is easy to understand in principle, but hard to put into
practice. The free exercise of religion obviously has limits. No one in his
right mind would advocate allowing a religion to operate whose basic
teachings involved child sacrifice or free sex with children. Obviously,
other laws kick in when First Amendment rights encroach upon other rights.
The problem is in determining objectively and consistently where that
boundary should be drawn.
The clause "free exercise of religion" clearly includes the freedom both to
actively worship as one pleases (within limits) and to refrain from worshiping
as one pleases. That immediately raises the question of determining where one
person's right to worship or not worship encroaches upon the complementary
right of another.
In any government-sponsored activity, government is required by law not to
favor or disfavor any religion. The only reasonable way to do this is simply
for government to avoid getting involved in sponsoring any religious activities
and avoid making unnecessary prohibitions on such. Because schools are run by
the government, they must comply with this rule. That necessarily must include
avoiding sponsoring prayer to any supernatural entities. It does not matter
whether such entity is the Christian God, or the Muslim Allah, or the
Egyptian Osiris, or the Hindu Vishnu: prayer is a religious activity and
American government is prohibited by the Constitution from sponsoring it.
By the same token, government is not allowed to prohibit prayer to such
entities. It would be a violation of the constitution for government to make
a law prohibiting private prayer at government-sponsored events, except
where such exercise of religious freedom encroaches upon the rights of others.
On the other hand, government is not prohibited from sponsoring all sorts
of other activities. Government can sponsor anything at all that is not
specifically prohibited in the Constitution or in case law.
Now let's take a look at how the Roane High School principal wants to
violate the First Amendment, and uses specious arguments:
"It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football
games to say a prayer and play the National Anthem to honor God and Country."
Custom has no bearing on the question of government-sponsored religious
activities.
"Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer
is a violation of Federal Case Law."
Not quite correct. It would be a violation for a government-sponsored school
official to preside over a ceremony of prayer to Osiris, Vishnu, Allah or
Yahweh. It would not be a violation to 'say a prayer' privately.
This is a good example of the straw man argument, where the arguer
misrepresents the issue at hand and argues against the misrepresentation,
leaving the audience with the impression that the real issue has been
dealt with.
The principal next uses the straw man technique to misrepresent what school
facilities can be used for. In most states, elementary school and state-run
college facilities are often used for religious activities as well as all
sort of other things. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses have held many
district conventions at the Gill Coliseum stadium of Oregon State University.
Here in Fort Collins, Colorado, various facilities of Colorado State
University are heavily used for religious activities.
The point is not what facilities are used for, but who is sponsoring the use
and for what purpose. It would be a violation of the First Amendment for
Colorado State University to sponsor a religious convention but
certainly not for it to allow such a convention in its facilities.
"As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to
approve of sexual perversion and call it an alternate lifestyle, and if
someone is offended, that's OK."
This is an outrageous misrepresentation of the law. Someone could certainly
use the facility "to approve of sexual perversion" if they properly rented
it and so forth. Someone could certainly use the facility for prayer
meetings if they properly rented it. What they can not do is use those
facilities during a school sponsored football game to advance some
political or religious or any other agenda.
This principal is actually misusing her position to advance a particular
religious view, and probably grossly violated the law. Referring to
homosexuality as "sexual perversion" is purely a religious view of certain
Christian sects. She used the government-sponsored facility, and her own
position as a government official, to advance her religious agenda and
thereby to violate the religious or moral precepts of others who do not
share her religious views.
This kind of gross hypocrisy, this total inability to see the world from a
viewpoint other than their narrow, bigoted viewpoint, is characteristic of
the Fundamentalists who run the "religious right" in the U.S. They are
precisely the type of people that the First Amendment was written to protect
everyone else against.
"I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity by dispensing condoms and
calling it safe sex."
Yet another attempt to advance the agenda of Fundamentalism. Who says that
Fundamentalist views of morality ought to dictate what everyone else does?
Government must take a neutral view with regard to all forms of religious
morality and must subscribe to a common denominator of secular morality.
"If someone is offended, that's OK. I can even use this public facility to
present the merits of killing an unborn baby as a viable means of birth
control. If someone is offended, no problem."
Yet another shot at using her government-sponsored position to violate the
First Amendment by advancing a religious agenda. If she wants to use the
facility to do so, she can personally sponsor a religious convention. She
is not allowed to advance religious agendas at a football game.
"I can designate a school day as earth day and involve students in
activities to religiously worship and praise the goddess, mother earth, and
call it ecology."
If someone uses a football game to advance such a religious agenda, then
that would be a violation of law. But this is really just another attempt
by this woman to promote her religious views. It's about on a par with
similar attempts by Fundamentalists to class the teaching of evolution and
related subjects as "religion".
"I can use literature, videos and presentations in the
classroom that depict people with strong, traditional Christian convictions
as simple minded and ignorant and call it enlightenment."
If that's what someone really did, then that would be wrong. But I suspect
that the woman is complaining about an unvarnished presentation of Fundy
views on various topics. Just as with JWs, when such views are stripped of
their candy coatings, the basic views are obviously ignorant, and only
simple-minded people will still accept them. Fundies like this woman and
JWs just hate unvarnished presentations of their views.
"However, if anyone uses this facility to honor God and ask Him to bless
this event with safety and good sportsmanship, Federal Case Law is violated."
Precisely. That's because doing so is forcing others to quietly accede to
the Christian Fundamentalist viewpoint. Why not ask Vishnu, Osiris and
Allah to bless the event?
"This appears to be inconsistent at best, and at worst, diabolical."
Only from the narrow Fundamentalist viewpoint.
"Apparently, we are to be tolerant of everything and anyone except God
and His Commandments."
Another straw man. The point is that no religious viewpoints ought
to be promoted by school officials at government-sponsored functions such
as football games. The woman is mixing up government-sponsored use of the
facilities with privately sponsored uses.
"Nevertheless, as a school principal, I frequently ask staff and students
to abide by rules, which they do not necessarily agree. For me to do
otherwise would be inconsistent at best, and at worst, hypocritical."
Enter the martyr. And the gross hypocrite.
"I suffer from that affliction enough unintentionally. I certainly do not
need to add an intentional transgression."
Again the martyr. This woman is some piece of work!
"For this reason, I shall, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's,"
and refrain from praying at this time."
It is good for a school principal to advocate obeying the Constitution.
We also note once again the false claim that prayer is prohibited. What
is prohibited is not prayer, but for a school official to lead a secular
audience in prayer to any supernatural entity.
"However, if you feel inspired to honor, praise and thank God, and ask
Him in the name of Jesus to bless this event, please feel free to do so."
Typical of Fundy hypocrites, the woman works right around the spirit of
the Constitution.
"As far as I know, that's not against the law----yet."
Now she's martyring all of Christianity. Pathetic.
"One by one, the people in the stands bowed their heads, held hands with
one another, and began to pray. They prayed in the stands. They prayed in
the team huddles. They prayed at the concession stand. And they prayed in
the announcer's box."
What else is to be expected in America's Bible Belt?
But let some other school official get up there and encourage the audience
to pray to Osiris, and what do you think would happen? That same principal
would almost certainly have the official arrested for violating the law.
Fundamentalist hypocrisy at its finest.
"The only place they didn't pray was in the Supreme Court of the United
States of America - the seat of "justice" in the one nation under God."
It is clearly recognized by U.S. courts that prayer of any sort to some god
or gods by government officials in discharging their duties is an implicit
"establishment of religion" by the government, and therefore is prohibited
by the Constitution. Let the Supreme Court pray to Osiris one day and you'd
see how fast Fundies would want to stomp on "religious freedom"!
"Somehow, Kingston, Tennessee remembered what so many have forgotten..we are
given the Freedom OF Religion, not the Freedom FROM Religion."
Absolutely wrong. The constitution clearly restricts the exercise of religious
freedom whenever such excercise would encroach upon anyone else's exercise of
religious freedom -- even if such freedom includes the right to be free of
social pressure to be seen praying in public.
"Praise God that His remnant remains!"
Starting to sound like Fred Franz now.
"Celebrate Jesus in 2001! Jesus said, "If you are ashamed of me, I will be
ashamed of you before my Father."
All well and good, but don't do it on school time.
AlanF
