Legislating prayer in goverment-owned buildings creates more problems than it solves

by HOWARD M. BERLIN

1/23/2000

With the increase in violence committed by today’s youths, some state and Congressional legislators have seized upon the opportunity to promote various kinds of "prayer" legislation to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling of more than 30 years ago. Without even addressing the constitutionality of these measures, these legislations if enacted into law will create more problems than they solve.

Here in Delaware, Democrat Representative A.O. Plant introduced House Bill 206 in the waning days of the 140th General Assembly that will amend Section 4101A(b) of Title 14 of the Delaware Code. This section currently permits a "moment of silence" to be used according to the dictates of the individual conscience of each student. During that period of silence no other activities shall take place. Mr. Plant intends his measure to "supplement" the current Code and would permit non-sectarian and non-proselytizing voluntary benedictions, invocations or prayers to be initiated by students on public school property during school related events, such as sports events, non-compulsory student assemblies, commencement ceremonies, etc. In addition, the legislation permits prayer to be initiated in public buildings. Teachers and administrators in the public schools must permit the voluntary participation, but teachers and administrators must not prescribe the form or content of any prayer.

HB 206 was quickly passed 40-0 (1 absent) by the House in a remarkable display of bipartianship that was political but not religious. Recently the Senate using good judgment, put aside consideration of this bill, awaiting the outcome of several constitutional issues now before the United States Supreme Court. To my knowledge, all of the 41 members of the House and the 21 members of the Senate are Christians of one denomination or another. Of course there is nothing wrong or sinister with having such a one-sided group, but for this important issue, religious minorities such as Jews and Muslims are grossly underrepresented - in fact, they are not represented in the legislature at all. So much for diversity and the liberal mentra of how various groups must mirror the population.

By convention, the majority is always comfortable with its own position, thinking that it is right, and can’t understand why those in the minority would be offended. As Mr. Plant is well aware, the Constitution was intended to protect the rights of the minority and those positions that many feel distasteful and unpopular. I disagree with Mr. Plant’s politics and race baiting methods he frequently uses to push his agenda, but there have been a few scant times where he has correctly pointed out wrongs and injustices. Here, I feel that he is well-meaning in proposing this legislation, but I nevertheless feel that it is misguided and I am unconvinced that it is needed.

With HB 206 and the obvious religious imbalance in the General Assembly, Mr. Plant and the other 39 elected members the House who voted are forcing the will of an apparent Christian majority on religious minorities and even those who profess no religion. As for athiests, I don’t believe they are inherently amoral or predisposed to committing violent acts just because they do not believe in the concept of a supreme being. Throughout non-biblical history, many atrocities and inequities have been justified and committed in the name of religion - the Crusades, the Inquisition, Northern Ireland, and Kosovo are just a few examples when a zealous religious majority has brutally persecuted and exterminated religious majorities.

The same week that HB 206 was passed also saw the U.S. House of Representatives approve by a 248-180 vote an amendment by Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama) to a juvenile crime bill that would allow states to decide whether to permit the display of the Ten Commandments in schools and other government buildings. Aderholt said that this was a "first step" for government in reinstilling the value of human life in children influenced by violent culture. To add stupidity to the mix, Rep. Bob Barr (R-Georgia) maintains that if the Ten Commandments had been posted at Columbine High School, the April 20 massacre there would never have happened.

I certainly do not condone this violence and I personally do not like guns. But when religious zealots in the majority and well-meaning individuals like Mr. Aderholt and Mr. Plant try to link the rash of shootings in public schools with the absence of organized prayer there, this is pure political grandstanding. There has not been demonstrated any proven cause and effect relationship between absence of prayer or the Ten Commandments and violence, and coincidence never qualifies as scientific proof.

Despite the assertions of the religious zealots, individual prayer was never removed from the public schools - individuals are still allowed to pray whenever they wish. Many students still "cross themselves" before taking a foul shot or after scoring a touchdown, say a silent prayer before eating a meal, etc. As a college professor, I’m pretty sure that many students still secretly ask for some sort of divine help before taking one of my exams.

Perhaps if students are lacking in religious ideals, it is that religion is absent from the home setting, for if the seeds of religious belief, morals, and ethics don’t originate in the home (as is hopefully the desire for education), you can’t and shouldn’t expect the school to act as surrogate parents under the guise of in loco parentis.

What I have a problem with is prayer, whether it be spontaneous or organized, that would be conducted in a secular venue in governemental buildings such as a school. Even a designated "moment of silence" has its subtle coercion if though not intended by the law’s framers. In my view, religion and prayer are very private and personal exercises of faith. Children of religious minorities might then be ridiculed by their sometimes intolerant, Gentile classmates if they decided to leave the classroom rather than passively remain silent or pray in a manner different from the majority practice.

As part of their faith, it is the duty of Christians to proselytize non-believers (e.g. Matthew 11:1; Mark 3:14) often through prayer, while Judaism discourages the practice. One only needs to look at the current activities of the Southern Baptists with their pamphlets targeted at religious minorities. If signed into law, both the Aderholt amendment and Plant’s HB 206 could in effect permit government to coerce, control and compromise religion. It could allow student use of the school intercom to lead captive classroom audiences in prayer, infringing on the rights of religious minorities.

I see problematic questions as to whose prayer will be prayed; which faith groups will get more days for their prayer(s); who will assign prayer opportunities; what will the children who object to the prayer do during prayer time? Who decides what is non-denominational? What constitutes proselytizing? How long is too long for a "moment" of silence? At what point is a prayer no longer a prayer and evolves into a religious service? These questions and other possible scenarios will undoubtedly promote a field day of legal challenges by the ACLU whenever an individual feels his civil and religious rights are being curtailed.

Public school administrators and teachers are already burdened with rules, edits, mandates, policies, programs, and laws that devour their precious energies and financial resources that have nothing to do with the education of students. Let us not add to this list with the problems that surely are to surface with the passage of these pieces of legislation.

Yes, we all would like for people to strive to conduct themselves in a morally upright fashion, perhaps something along the respect for one’s parents and the prohibitions - murder, stealing, perjury, coveting, etc. - advocated by the Ten Commandments (regardless of whose version isd used). These standards are already codified in civilized societies. However, the legislative measures proposed by Messers Plant and Aderhold are not the proper approaches to reach their intended goal.

In conclusion, I would like to quote Ecclesiastes 3:1 - "To every thing there is season and a time to every purpose under the heaven." There is always time for the free, public exercise of religion, but the proper place for this purpose should be in those respective houses of worship given tax exempt status for this purpose - synagogues, churches, mosques, stakes, and meeting houses - not the secular public schools and other government-owned buildings.