Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Thompson to ask Obama for Ryan commutation
Next Post: This just in… Sun-Times: Guv won’t file suit
Posted in:
* The setup…
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the state law requiring a moment of silence in public schools across Illinois is unconstitutional, saying it crosses the line separating church and state.
“The statute is a subtle effort to force students at impressionable ages to contemplate religion,” U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman said in his ruling. […]
As passed by the Illinois General Assembly, the law allows students to reflect on the day’s activities rather than pray if that is their choice and defenders have said it therefore doesn’t force religion on anyone.
But Gettleman upheld critics such as the American Civil Liberties Union, who say the law is a thinly disguised effort to bring religion into the schools.
The “teacher is required to instruct her pupils, especially in the lower grades, about prayer and its meaning as well as the limitations on their ‘reflection,’” Gettleman ruled.
“The plain language of the statute, therefore, suggests an intent to force the introduction of the concept of prayer into the schools,” he said.
Zorn has the full ruling at his blog.
* The Question: Agree or disagree with the decision? Explain fully.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:15 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Thompson to ask Obama for Ryan commutation
Next Post: This just in… Sun-Times: Guv won’t file suit
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Agreed.
I’ve done some substitute teaching while getting my MBA. The moment of silence is a joke. Lets quit playing around with this stupid attempt at forcing prayer in schools.
If a kid want’s to pray at school, they can any time. Say it before class, during class, at lunch, on the playground, anywhere.
But why must we mandate a special moment?
Comment by How Ironic Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:24 am
Sounds like another reason to support school choice.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:30 am
Vanilla Man,
We all have “school choice.”
We can send our children to any school we choose.
Got anything else?
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:32 am
I agree, of course. Teachers are the last people who should be instructing students about prayer. That’s a job for family and Sunday school (or Saturday school as the case may be).
I’ve never understood what organized prayer in the schools is supposed to accomplish anyway. It just seems like bullying. And I prayed a lot in school, believe me — that I wouldn’t get caught, that I wouldn’t make a fool of myself, that I wouldn’t get called upon, etc.
Matthew 6:5 and 6:6
“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.”
“But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:32 am
Agreed. but only because of the part of the statute on
instruction about prayer. a moment of silence is not
inherently religious. acting training often involves silence
and centering. it’s not about religion, it’s about quiet. too
bad they did not write the statute so that silence, which
we can all use from time to time, can rule so that the mind can
follow wherever.
Comment by Amy Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:32 am
What Wordslinger said. That sums up about as well as it can be done.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:33 am
What’s the joke about it? Seriously?
I’m not a zealot for bringing prayer into schools but I agree with Pat Moynian who long ago when asked about it said he had never heard of a child harmed by prayer in schools.
Comment by Bill Baar Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:34 am
What’s the old joke - as long as there are math tests there will always be prayer in school.
Comment by GOP'er Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:35 am
Another foolish opinion regarding the so called separation of church and state.
The argument that a moment of silence force the concept of prayer into the schools is a stretch.
Vouchers for all to expand the concept of school choice.
Comment by plutocrat03 Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:39 am
Parents who want children to learn to pray should do so at home and in their faith institutions.
I never want government involved as gov’t is inherently bad in teaching real values.
For those who do not believe, this just causes divisions among students.
Prayer, the pledge of allegiance and similar things detract from reading skills, study skills, math, science and worthy elements of education. We put so many mandates on teachers and do not give them the respect to educate well.
So we give up art and music but insist on “reflective thinking”, patriotism our way, “safe computing”, and other pet subjects of legislators.
Let’s quit legislating the classroom and instead focus on proper funding and hiring good teachers. Let the good teachers determine the curriculum.
Comment by Skeptic Cal Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:44 am
The legislature twice passed this bill. Let the legislators who voted for it take the heat for their votes.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:45 am
Take a look at the broader context. I agree that, assuming we have to have schools as they are, forcing a moment of silence on kids is a weird and creepy intrusion. Adding in mandatory instructions about prayer is worse.
But the bigger problem is that we have forced religious fundamentalists to accept schools that don’t meet their needs. This system of creating huge, bureaucratic government schools leaves huge swathes of children badly served by schools that don’t match their families. Trying to create a school that fits every child in a community is as successful as a recipe that combines every ingredient in the grocery store. Yecch.
There really should be a better way to combine private entities with schools. We’re accustomed to the idea that churches might have schools, but unions, political parties, sports clubs, neighborhoods, or pretty much any other large association could establish a school that serves a segment of the population.
If you’ve read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut, it helps make the point.
Common standards have a place, but so does individuality. I don’t want every child to be forced to pray, but I don’t want children to be forced NOT to pray either. That’s the same restriction that keeps Noam Chomsky out of schools, which is a loss. Under the current structure, it’s very difficult and expensive for parents to choose a non-blandified school.
So, the court decision is right in this context, but the context is fundamentally flawed in a way that created the problem to begin with.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:48 am
I agree.
The intent and effect of this is to encourage prayer. The problem, and the fight, is not over whether someone can pray or otherwise express religion in a school. The problem is whether it is encouraged and/or mandated by the school and thus the government. This is still an attempt to make religion in some way “official,” to try to create a weak form of government endorsement. Moreover, it tries to impose religion on students. Again, weakly, but it does create, and is intended to create, this environment.
Comment by rrt Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:49 am
Agree. The difference between “May” and “Shall” is a big one.
Comment by Concerned Observer Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:54 am
Wordslinger…that passage is one that has always stuck in my head over the years.
Well said…and for Rich’s sake, I would mimic your comments…
Comment by BandCamp Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 11:54 am
I’m cool with school prayer in school with one caveat: the moment of silence must be followed by a moment of rational sexual education teaching… no abstinence-only teaching allowed!
Comment by Trav in the lab Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:02 pm
I insist on quiet at all times. I have never taught in a public school that uses a moment of silence as an excuse for prayer.
When I tell them to put their heads down on the desk, I don’t add - “and no praying!”
Comment by Shelbyville Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:04 pm
This issue and a host of others is simply an outgrowth of hindered options for public education. If you have means, you can of course send Ýour kids anywhere. For the rest, you get the one-size fits all approach to education that your local school provides. A part of that is values, government now picks the winner of what values get presented and which ones are denigrated. Abstinence ed v comprehensive sex ed is a great example. Instead of, say, letting the parent choose which set of values the child is presented with, people use political power to force the issue on both sides. Let the parents who want to be involved in their childrens lives have a real say in education via vouchers, charters, et all and many of these problems go away.
Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:07 pm
I only disagree with the judge that this was a “subtle” introduction of religion into the public schools. There was nothing subtle about it.
And yes, the legislators were cowards for passing it the first time back in the 1950s (fighting the godless communists?)and cowards in the past few years for trying to strengthen it.
Comment by Capitol View Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:12 pm
Disagree.
From a legal standpoint, if there was evidence that teachers are instructing students to pray a certain way (or at all) and trying to influence their choice of religion, then I’d agree – that’s a clear violation of the establishment clause. But that’s not what’s been presented here. What we are being told is that asking students to “contemplate religion” and introducing them to the “concept of prayer” rises to the level of “an establishment of religion” – and I think that’s a stretch. If it’s not a clear violation of the Constitution, then the law should stand as written by the legislature. Got a problem with it, call your legislator, not your lawyer.
On a practical level, it should be remembered that religion – and prayer – have been tremendously important to world history and the arts. Saying that it is a concept that should not be introduced or contemplated is, in every classically academic sense of the word, ignorant.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:16 pm
You voucher folks, you don’t have a problem with your tax dollars supporting a Muslim school, or a Jewish school, or a Hindu school or a Wikkan school or an atheist school, right?
It’s the principle of choice, correct?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:17 pm
Ironically I once got a piece of advice I thought very wise which was, “Never argue over politics, abortion or religion.” We’ve managed to capture two of these in the same thread. Religion and politics both evoke great emotion and are difficult to discuss rationally.
Personally I don’t have a problem with the moment of silence, nor the phrase “one nation under God,” nor the addition of “So help me God” to the oath of office of the president. As long as possible things to do during the moment of silence are clearly laid out to the children and not endorsed I think it is a great thing. A moment of silence beats a dose of Ritalin (sp). Prayer is good, reflection is good, meditation is good…let them choose.
Comment by Spiro T Agnew Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:20 pm
I agree with the ruling. Although, as a christian I would like to see more prayer in general, it is not something that the government needs to be sanctioning through “moments of silence”.
Prayer is a personal endevour that needs to be practiced when a believer feels the need for guidance from the lord, not when Mrs. Smith starts the egg timer for the “moment of silence”.
Comment by Speaking At Will Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:22 pm
Wordslinger-
No, I don’t have a problem with it. As long as the result of the education is above a certain level, go to town. I’m not about empowering government to enforce my preferences in child development, I simply ask the same in return. That’s what liberty is about.
Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:23 pm
I agree with the decision, and I think it’s a crime for the legislature to be wasting its time with this sort of thing when there are so many burning issues that need to be dealt with. They say they’re not trying to establish religion, or a religion, in the schools. What other purpose could this legislation possibly have? The schools have enough problems to deal with without introducing this kind of claptrap.
Comment by Excessively rabid Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:35 pm
BS . . . simply BS, Our judges should read the law, not create it. If it gets to the 7th Circuit, they will overturn this in a heartbeat.
Comment by Sporty41 Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:36 pm
I agree. Adding to what Word said….
Parents who wish to have their children gather themselves before the start of the day may do so at home.
Not to metnion it is discrminatory. The teachers are supposed to allow children to pray, but not every religion prays silently, or seated at a desk.
Suppose a child wished to use the moment of prayer for their religion, started burning incense, chanting and dancing about the classroom. To the extent the moment of silence allows those who choose to do so to pray, it really is only for certain religions who worship in a certain way.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:36 pm
Wordslinger, I’m like Bambenek. If there are enough students to support the school, let them be eligible to receive the vouchers.
Comment by South Side Mike Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:36 pm
The court engages here in seriously muddled thinking:
“Even silent thoughts by a student about a professional sporting event or a family vacation would appear to violate the stated intent of the Statute.”
As if “reflection” was to be forcibly restricted to the present tense. This kind of arbitrary hardening of the language intended to give a somewhat fluid shape to the concept of reflection can have only one purpose: To create an easily disposed of straw man. For anyone who has ever done it, any reflection seriously undertaken is a synthesis of tidbits from past, present and future. The court’s conclusion here is amazingly out of touch with the realities on the ground.
Therefore, the court’s unnatural treatment of the language must have an ulterior purpose, conscious or otherwise, which I take to be the perpetuation of the stereotyping of people of faith as inherently seeking coercive conversions simply because we want public recognition of our freedom to practice our faith holistically, i.e., in all areas of our life, not just in church once a week. We reject being huddled into a psychological ghetto just because we think it is important to pray. The bill’s language is framed as opportunity, not compulsion, because that is what religious people are trying to regain by it, simply an opportunity to connect with God at an important moment of the day. The teacher is in effect a substitute parent during the day, and the state has no right to filter all religious aspects of the parent-child relationship just because they have the children involuntarily under their control. The reflection alternative is therefore provided to allow parental influence of a non-religious character to be projected by the teacher as well.
“Consequently, the teacher is compelled to instruct her pupils, especially in the lower grades, about prayer and its meaning as well as the limitations on their ‘reflection.’”
As the “limitations of reflection” have been so horrifically distorted by this court, I doubt any teacher would actually know how to properly instruct her children on those limitations. And as for instruction as to what prayer is, this is not necessary for those who already know, and not required for those who don’t.
This is such a huge red herring that one can almost understand why the court jumps the shark so badly here:
“The plain language of the Statute, therefore, suggests an intent to force the introduction of the concept of prayer into the schools.”
This is not about coerced instruction in prayer. This is about rejecting the Ghettofication of people who want to carry out the requirements of their faith in a setting that is hostile to that faith. Those children who do not believe in prayer would benefit in a free society seeing the freedoms of others honored. It could actually result in a higher degree of interreligious tolerance. Would that be such a bad influence to have on young minds?
As for the following comment, it misses the point entirely:
“Even the sponsor of the 2007 amendment attempted to minimize the effect of the Statute by comparing it to the public prayer by which the Illinois General Assembly opens its daily sessions.”
Minimization is not the objective. Rather, the point is to show that civilized democracies do include religiously tolerant behavior in the exercise of state functions. This is so simple, but the institutionalized intolerance of modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence has made it so hard.
BTW, my position on the opinion, in case you haven’t guessed it, is that I strongly disagree.
Comment by Springfield Reformer Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:36 pm
Agree. The court ruling is based on a very long line of legal precedent.
Outside of legal grounds, the legislators who have been fighting for a “moment of silence” have been pretty open about their motivation to use this as an avenue to open up organized prayer in schools. Moreover, there have been too many examples of teachers using moments of silence to proselytize.
As a practical matter, how does a teacher effectively meet the requirement that he or she instruct about “contemplating religion” in increasingly diverse classrooms?
Religious education should be left to parents. Public schools — subject to government mandates, passions of other childrens’ parents, and diverse student populations — are not up to the task.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:38 pm
If Muslim students are being given special rooms in which to pray to their god several times a day, schools should also offer similar respect and accomidations to students of other beliefs. If this is a slippery slope, then maybe government run schools should not make special allowances for any religion.
We say we believe in the seperation of church and state. If we truly seperate church and state, then no religion will get a special pass, and all students should have to wait until they leave school to pray.
I personally believe students who wish to exercize their faith should be allowed to do so during breaks or lunch. The problem comes with the Government sanctioned prayer. I do not agree with that. A moment of silence might be a grey area, or cross over the line.
Giving certain religions special consideration while denying others is blatently predjudiced. Government should stay out of religious matters altogether.
Comment by Say WHAT? Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:53 pm
Disagree — what am I missing here? I’m usually pretty sympathetic these things — I don’t like Christmas/Chaunakah/etc. displays on public property, don’t like giving govt. money to groups that have religion in them like the Boy Scouts/etc. But a moment of silence for prayer OR reflection strikes me as fair — indeed, the very fact that it’s NOT explicitly for prayer might make a kid think ABOUT the separation of church/state and tolerance for those who don’t pray.
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 12:54 pm
“You voucher folks, you don’t have a problem with your tax dollars supporting a Muslim school, or a Jewish school, or a Hindu school or a Wikkan school or an atheist school, right? It’s the principle of choice, correct?”
I didn’t say “vouchers,” but I did speak for alternatives, so I’ll put myself in the category of people who would accept Wiccan schools, Baptist schools, etc.
My parents have a political cartoon on their refrigerator that shows a bunch of children worshiping some sort of devil-monster shrine, and there’s a kid with a permission slip, and the teacher is saying, “Don’t think this will get you out of handling the goat entrails!” Once you open up to religion, who knows which one you’ll get? All of them, no doubt.
The current system of education includes a wide variety of things I disagree with, the first and foremost being that all children and all families must set aside their beliefs in order to have an education. Or that big, bureaucratic systems are good and trustworthy. Neither of those things is a good principle for a democratic society with empowered citizens, and yet we drill that into our kids all day, every day, with no tempering of the message. Bad idea!
So yes, any system of education that replaces it will have other things I don’t like. But it’s a loss to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The current system is broken, and loosening up the autocratic, top-down controls would be an improvement.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 1:12 pm
I agree with the ruling. Public schools need to focus more on educating our students rather than allowing themselves to be victims of the culture wars that are going on. Cultural values belong in the home.
Comment by HoBoSkillet Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 1:13 pm
Let’s try to stick to the question at hand, please. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 1:19 pm
The ruling is wrong. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a religion. It does not state the State cannot encourage religion as a whole. The fact is that children with some type of religious belief system statistically do better in schools. I understand many other factors come into play, but there is evidence to support the legislature’s decision here and it did not estatiblish a religion. Unfortunately I suspect as practiced there was probably some line crossing in some circumstances.
While I disagree with the Courts ruling based on the constitition we have to be realistic about our expectations on schools. They have a lot to do with kids in a small day. If I am that concerned about my child’s relationship with God, I need to make that a priority, not expect the school to take care of it for me. I will educate my children that they are allowed to pray any time and any place they choose and no one can stop them as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
The judge is wrong, but the if the children don’t know God, the blame starts at home, not school, and not on a the Court.
Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 1:20 pm
If anyone can provide any empirically derived evidence that any anthropomorphic higher being has ever answered a prayer from anyone, anywhere, at anytime in the history of the world, then there might actually be some basis for the church, but not the state for involving itself in the lobbying of the higher power.
Comment by vole Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 1:42 pm
Agree - Prayer is a matter for family, not school. Different religions have different ways of praying and not all of them are compatible with a mass of people at school praying silently while standing in a group. This is more than a slippery slope. The school day is precious and there is little enough time for learning. If parents want their kids to pray they should find a time for it before or after school, in the context of the family.
Comment by Far Northsider Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 2:38 pm
“…provide any empirically derived evidence…”
This is precisely the debate, whether a belief system that includes only empirical evidence should be elevated above all others, to the exclusion of all others. There are elements of human experience that are not empirical, including things like hunches and intuition that scientists and mathematicians routinely rely on for their work. (Let alone appreciation of beauty or other such frivolities.) You can look at the debates between Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend to get an idea of how deep this train of thought goes.
There is an element of disrespect for what we don’t yet know, when mysterious things are not studied. We can prove, empirically, that there is much we don’t know. We can prove, empirically, that studying non-empirical topics leads to empirical discoveries (as well as other things of human value, like emotional well-being). And yet, ironically, an empirical perspective is used to exclude study of non-empirical topics.
Sadly, our current school system is so rigid that injecting forced religion would be a continued disservice to children. But pretending that human experience is limited to the empirical is not a way forward from that point.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 2:41 pm
Wordslinger et al
Whatever school delivers the educational goods is fine with me. With a voucher in hand I have the choice of using to to go to any available school.
I could even give the voucher to my local publich school if that were the best education choice..
The voucher is for the tax dollars which the alternative school demands, but never more than the cost per student at a public school.
In fact, if it were less and the voucher were issued by the public school, there is that much more money per student to educate the remaining students. In theory — but probably only in theory — that will enable the public school to reach a higher level. If the appropriation per student from all sources is $10K and the voucher school only charges $8K, that is $2K more for the publics.
Do the math — if your school taught you that.
Comment by Truthful James Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 3:00 pm
There has never been any “empirically derived evidence” to suppor Darwin’s theory of evolution by proving a species can jump from one to another, yet evolution is taught in school every day.
On the other Hand, the Bible cites hundreds of confirmed historical and archeological facts without a single piece of physical evidence ever being found to dispute it, despite attempts to discredit it over thousands of years.
How many thousands of times must attempts to prove something false fail, before it is accepted as true?
The Law did not violate the establishment provision of the Constitution, but there is evidence that a believe in a higher power does improve kids performance. Not to mention just slowing down for a minute to take a breath and think about the day before you is not a bad idea and does not endorse religion. I will reiterate my prior post, that I disagree with the ruling, but the judge can’t stop prayer in school.
Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 3:36 pm
=== You voucher folks, you don’t have a problem with your tax dollars supporting a Muslim school, or a Jewish school, or a Hindu school or a Wikkan school or an atheist school, right?
It’s the principle of choice, correct? ===
Correct.
Comment by kimsch Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 4:10 pm
I simply disagree, but I do understand.
My belief is based on respect of community traditions. It is a belief based on the recognition that the things around me didn’t just happen by accident. We are all living a very rich life. We didn’t get to this point by chasing every pop fad, throwing stones at everything that came before us, or by laughing at those older than us. Like the old saying, we are tall because we stand on our ancestor’s shoulders.
So I’m a little cautious regarding education. It’s history is chock full of fads, disproven theories and stupid stunts. Our schools have not been improving since we started throwing rocks at our schools. Children are failing. Not only are they unprepared for the 21st Century, today’s kids are showing us that they aren’t prepared for the 20th, the 19th or probably the 18th. So, whatever happened, it has happened during our lifetime. We screwed up.
How can a society produce less-educated children? How have we done this?
Excuse those of us who believe it is because we have turned away from what worked before. There are many of us who have seen education budgets skyrocket across the country, with little improvements delivered. So a lot of us don’t believe it is because we aren’t being taxed enough.
A moment of silence didn’t harm a child. This silly little idea won’t right this sinking ship. On the other hand, when some of us become too haughty in our lack of faith to respect those of us with faith, the split will prevent the community support needed to find a solution.
Each of us is too important to throw away regarding our educational challenges. We are not at liberty to fingerpoint and insult any idea right now.
This ruling is a flag to those of us who want to help beyond our thankless task as a taxpayer, that our beliefs are disrespected and unwelcomed by an elite group of self-annointed hacks.
So don’t be surprised when we refuse to help in the future.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 4:41 pm
I’m sorry…what? This is disrespectful to those with faith? Exactly what aspect of this country’s dominant faith demands that not only must some children pray at a specific time every day in school, but also that all other children must sit quietly by while they do so?
Demanding that no child or adult may ever pray in any fashion on government property? That’s disrespectful. Asking that maybe we not require everyone to participate in a “moment of silence” that was in no way created to reinforce religion in students wink-wink nudge-nudge say-no-more? Not so much.
There is a reason I mentioned intent and effect in my prior post. This isn’t a matter of allowing religious expression by students–that’s already allowed. If this was about parents’ need for religious instruction for their children, this would be about vouchers (as others have discussed) or elective courses (of course, the constitutionality of state-funded religious indoctrination electives would be a separate issue.) The intent and effect of this law is, with a wink and a nudge, to undermine church/state separation and to push religion. There’s no other compelling reason to make it a mandatory part of classtime for all students. If anything, it’s the inherent dishonesty of this law that I find most disrespectful.
Comment by rrt Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 5:26 pm
I agree with the ruling. I also agree we need to modernize our entire approach to public education. I pray we’ll find the courage to continue to debate and find some consensus on this so we can move beyond simple solutions to this complicated problem. It’s too important for distractions like prayer and moments of silence.
I want solutions, not gimmicks. Can we move past school prayer now, once and for all? Or will we find another way to reintroduce this nonissue?
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 5:26 pm
The ruling was correct. The legislation, while characterized as “moment of silence,” in my estimation was nothing more than an attempt to pander to the religious right by attempting in a subtle fashion to enact a requirement of prayer in schools.
My position doesn’t mean that I don’t have faith - I just don’t believe it is the business of government to impose faith, or prayer - my prayers or anyone else’s types of prayers on anyone. (That’s true conservatism.)
This legislation ranks up there with the unconstitutional video game ban that was struck down a year or two ago.
Of course, that’s why I would never last as a legislator. I would vote against these types of government over-reaching and would provide all sorts of campaign fodder for my opponents. Having been around the legislative process for more years than I care to admit, that’s why this stuff passes. It is easier to vote in favor of something, even if you know it is unconstitutional, rather than vote against it and have it used against you in your next campaign. That’s why this separation of powers thing works well sometimes. The court system has the independence to make these types of determinations.
Comment by Just the Facts Thursday, Jan 22, 09 @ 5:52 pm