Judge blocks moment of silence law
Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I had this on the blog yesterday, but the news came in so late that many of you may not have seen it or had a chance to comment…
A federal court judge Wednesday found that a new state law ordering a moment of silence for prayer or reflection at the start of the school day was “likely unconstitutional.”
U.S. District Court Judge Robert Gettleman blocked a northwest suburban school district from following the mandate, and he could extend the ban to schools statewide today. In his preliminary ruling, Gettleman found that the law was vague and questioned how teachers and school officials were supposed to follow it and how it was to be enforced.
* More…
Gettleman said the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act isn’t specific enough about what is a “moment” and when it should take place. It also may cross the line into unconstitutionality by giving students a choice to pray, the judge said.
The statute states that students shall be given an opportunity for silent prayer or reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.
That would in essence tell a child “you’ve got to think about praying,” the judge said.
Gettleman said he also is concerned about whether a child could or would do something physical in an act of prayer, such as take out a Bible or a Muslim prayer book.
There are only two choices given by the statute, he said. “One is an endorsement of prayer,” he said. “If that’s the way it’s being interpreted, then I think we have a problem.”
* What will the attorney general do? Uknown at this point, but she has already kinda sorta intervened…
The attorney general’s office had been asked at an initial court hearing two weeks ago whether it intended to defend the law, and it had no specific answer then, either.
“The Attorney General has declined to intervene … from what I can tell,” Gettleman said Wednesday.
He encouraged the office’s representative, Thomas Ioppolo, to come back to court today at 11 a.m. with a more definitive answer.
Lisa Madigan’s office said it never intended not to defend the law, but was simply deciding which legal avenue was best to pursue. Because the statute so vastly deviated from normal legislation in that it did not name any party responsible for enforcing the law, there is technically no constitutional officer responsible for it. The office must now determine if it wants to file a motion to intervene or pursue some other avenue of defense. […]
[Madigan’s chief of staff, Ann Spillane] said Ioppolo had written a 15-page brief defending the constitutionality of the law and had argued as much in court Wednesday.
In fact, Gettleman said, for someone who hadn’t officially intervened on behalf of the law yet, Ioppolo’s brief was so persuasive that it forced Sherman’s lawyers to concede to much of his arguments.
* Meanwhile, Eric Zorn wants the General Assembly to step in and rewrite the law…
The state can either fight for this unnecessary and intrusive law by waging an expensive court battle, or members of the General Assembly can attempt to re-write and pass a similar law that overcomes the Constitutional objections.
Best advice: Drop it.
Thoughts?
- What can I say? - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 8:59 am:
If you don’t think there’s prayer in school, you haven’t taken a test in a long time.
- Bill Baar - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 9:12 am:
It also may cross the line into unconstitutionality by giving students a choice to pray, the judge said.
The judge must think that would be a bad choice.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 9:31 am:
Vague? You bet it is!
I have been watching us accommodate diversity of religious beliefs throughout our country, but watching an utter disavowel of religious beliefs in public schools. It is a mess because we just don’t know what we are supposed to believe anymore.
It is like we are caught between the 20th Century belief that religion should be banned from public institutions, but then are wheeled backwards when the situation is presented as accommodating religious diversity.
We are acting like idiots!
Religion is a part of life. It has always been a part of our governments too. What we didn’t have at that time are simple-minded purists who demand that there is no blurring between the two.
Religion was kicked in the pants during the 20th Century, when it became fashionable to see it as the root of all evil. “Modern” societies such as Russia, Nazi Germany, and in China just banned religion entirely as obsolete and dangerous. But these societies discovered that antheism was worse than religion after they ended up burying millions of murdered innocents in the name of modern communist, or fascist living.
But we still have a loud group of whiners who wish to bring this to the US, and have had success during the counter-culture movements of the 1960s-1970s, you know, those “modern” Boomers so open minded their brains fell out. We are still in a drive to ensure that we can seperate any perceptions of religion from our public places. We justify these purist attempts by claiming we cannot favor one religion over another, so we must ban all of them. This mentality is like the one when Dad got too angry to think about the squabble and just sent all the kids to their rooms.
Thanks to diversity, we have rediscovered the importance religion has to some people and in our blathering PC-correct tongue bath mentality, which currently passes for some kind of enlightenment, have decided it was OK to start accommodating religious people who are not like us. (As long as it wasn’t Christian, it was OK.)
Well, you see, this isn’t working either. Now we have ended up with ridiculous “moments of silence” which have no form or direction to them, much like public education itself. And now the purists are offended and saying that this should end because it is probably, most likely, “but we’re not sure”, unconstitutional.
These kinds of silly arguments are doing little but ensuring that today’s parents shun public schools entirely. Education is important, and the focus of schools shouldn’t be on satisfying some ignorant squabble that doesn’t effect education. Smart people know where religion belongs in their lives and understand how it expands horizons of understanding and strengthens personal character. We know that we need religion. What we are also discovering is that we need to find an educational setting for our children that balances life’s lessons regardless of how society’s whims waffle. Increasingly, this is no longer found in public schools.
- Cassandra - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 9:47 am:
Kudos to Mr. Sherman.
My uber-liberal community of Oak Park, by the way,
was almost totally silent on this silly law, perhaps out of fears of appearing politically incorrect.Kimberly Lightford does represent part of Oak Park and when the choice is between political correctness and using your head, the wealthy liberal elites who run Oak Park go for political correctness every time. Most of them send their kids to private schools, after all.
When it comes to the kids, they’re not THAT liberal.
- Catholic - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 10:10 am:
I am a Catholic who went to Catholic schools and sends my kids to Catholic schools and know I have made the right decision. Part of the reason we have sent our kids to Catholic schools is because I want prayer in my kids’ schools. I just don’t think it belongs in public schools. This silence issue is a back door attempt at prayer in schools and it is not approriate.
- Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 10:25 am:
So what happens if a student starts chanting during the “moment of silence”?
Is the school going to discipline him/her? On what grounds? Disrupting the moment of silence? Wouldn’t the school be obligated to argue the “moment of silence” had some purpose or value?
What is the purpose or value of the “moment of silence”? It allowed legislators to ingratiate themselves to certain religious leaders? OK, but what is the value for the students and schools? What is the purpose?
Does the “moment of silence” improve test scores? Student discipline?
What is the evidence of this?
The “moment of silence” is a dumb idea. Once a few students figure out they can cause their schools headaches by speaking during the “moment of silence” the law is going to cause schools problems.
Legally, there’s a freedom of speech problem with the law as well as a freedom of religion problem. If the absence of speech is a type of communication, what is the basis for the government imposing one type of communication on the whole state? What is the public purpose of the law that outweighs the Constitution’s limitations on the gov’t’s power to restrict speech?
- Sister Mary Martini - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 10:48 am:
The whole idea is so ridiculous it was picked up by humor site TopFive.com as yesterday’s list topic. Here’s the intro: “The Illinois State Legislature recently passed a bill mandating a ‘moment of reflection’ in public schools at the beginning of each day. The bill’s sponsor said he hoped the quiet time would help students calm down and think about their plans. Sure, Mr. Politician. THAT’S what they’ll be thinking about.” It’s some funny stuff. Don’t you just love when the whole country laughs at us?
- 2for2 - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 10:53 am:
I give Blago props for trying to stop this ridiculous law. Its so nice to see the hard work of Democratic activists over the years to make Illinois “blue” pay off with the passing of a law more suited for Alabama.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 10:56 am:
I’m not sure that TopFive.com qualifies as the “whole country.”
- It's Fine - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 10:59 am:
So how exactly is a moment of silence prayer? We can’t force other people to pray if they don’t want to. A moment of silence is nothing more than that: taking a brief period of time when no sound is made. Whether an individual prays or gathers his thoughts about work/school or lets his eyes wander around the room is up to each individual. This law is so far from a violation of the Establishment Clause. I am repulsed by the fact that Sherman is using his daughter as a means of challenging this law. Believe what you want to believe and stand up for your beliefs. I can respect Sherman for that. But to use his daughter as a pawn in this match only subjects her to unnecessary stress and hardship. It’s hard enough being a teenager.
- cynically anonymous - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 11:03 am:
It is amazing to me that - in a state rife with political corruption, stuck in a budgetary quagmire, trying to balance the budget on the backs of those who go to casinos in the hopes of winning big(but generally losing big) - we are wasting so much time and energy over the idea of a “moment of silence” in public schools. What an incredibly warped sense of priorities.
- so-called "Austin Mayor" - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 11:26 am:
Are there any constitutional scholars on this blog?
Can a law be unconstitutionally stupid?
– SCAM
- Ghost - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 11:27 am:
The law was dumb, the fight is dumb, the existance of this as a controversy makes us all dumber.
Where is the beef? No enforcement action or actual kids have true negative impact. leave the dumb disguised prayer in school law alone and lets get on with real issues.
- Ghost - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 11:31 am:
lets just lease the State of Illinois to a private buisness over 40 years. In exchange we will get a large up front payment of roughly 1/3 what the state would actually generate in revenue over that period of time, but the current gov will be flush with cash and leave to the next gov the massive fiscal crisis.
- Ghost - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 11:32 am:
Ignore the last bit, it was intended for the blog on the medicaid payments.
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 11:37 am:
As long as the law permits students to do anything as long as it’s silent (e.g. make funny faces, draw, read, pray …) then I don’t think it’s a violation. If the teachers try to make the moment of silence solemn (e.g. no funny faces, no drawing…) then I think you start to steer into funny Constitutional waters.
VanillaMan,
What changed in the 70s and going forward was the consensus in America. We went from being a nation that was 90+% Christian to 80+% Christian and if you look at those under 40 it’s around 65% Christian. Most of the most outspoken atheists are former Christians and our prime religion in the US is Christianity so it stands to reason it will be picked on the most. If our prime religion was Judaism or Shamanism I suspect you would see that religion as the one most “attacked”.
You can respect religious diversity without propping up any one faith as better than any other. The Science and Industry Museum does it every year with its Christmas tree display that also includes Chanuka, Solstice, Diwali and other such religious celebrations taking place near Christmas.
- Shelbyville - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 11:45 am:
The problem is it was mandated. I always started the day with silence while I took roll, filled out the lunch form and got my books ready. But, the students were able to write, draw, read, etc. Other than that, I am not sure why one class during the day has a mandated moment of silence. I don’t object to it, I just think it is unenforcable.
- kimsch - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 11:49 am:
I told my going to be seven-years-old on Sunday little boy that he could say a prayer or just imagine he’s Optimus Prime during that time.
As to the Judge’s concern about someone whipping out a religious tome such as the Bible or a Koran for the moment of silence, I don’t think there would be time… And what would it matter? It’s up to the student.
Regarding the “choice to pray” concern of the Judge, The Supreme Court has said that schools can’t STOP students from praying or having a bible study group. The law says there has to be that choice
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 12:02 pm:
I believe that religious diversity means allowing all religions to appear in our public places. Not just Christianity.
The “moment of silence” objectors are not those who are not Christian, they are those who are intolerant of Christianity, and just can’t turn their intolerance off enough to overlook this silly law. You don’t see Muslims or Jews objecting to this, do you? The whiners are the ones still clinging to the 45 year old “Summer of Love” concepts.
- kimsch - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 12:05 pm:
Madeline Murray O’Hair started all of this.
- Bill Baar - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 12:25 pm:
So what happens if a student starts chanting during the “moment of silence”?
Is the school going to discipline him/her? On what grounds? Disrupting the moment of silence? Wouldn’t the school be obligated to argue the “moment of silence” had some purpose or value?
Yep, a kid should disicpline for disrupting a moment of silence; and for any other kind of disruption for that matter.
It doesn’t matter if the disrupted moment had any value or not.
- Jake From Elwood - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 12:44 pm:
Isn’t it the responsibility of the Illinois Attorney General to enforce and defend ALL state laws? I thought that was a significant part of the job description of that office.
- M. Margaret - Thursday, Nov 15, 07 @ 6:48 pm:
Yes, the Attorney General is required to defend the laws passed by the legislature. It’s best not to presume the intent of the Attorney General or her Assistants who appear in court as to their opinion on this issue. Also, if the Supt. of the State Board of Education is sued to stop doing something, the AG must also defend the St. Bd. of Ed.