What's Wrong with Praying at Graduation?
I wrote the following in response to 2 columns by Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center. I don't know about you, but I get tired of being told that Christianity being seen or heard offends people, when we are the majority in this country, and that we must yield to their discomfort. Then they tell us we have no right to ask the same of those who offend us with the sleezy sights and sounds of raunchy music, TV shows and films, movies, and advertisements, that we must endure almost everywhere. Anyway, here's what I wrote to Mr. Haynes:
Dear Mr. Haynes,
I read both of your “graduation prayer” columns, I still firmly agree with the majority. I am distressed that a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center would seem to take a position so far removed from the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.” Despite the way that recent courts have distorted the clear intent of the founders, some things are still pretty obvious.
1) Nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights intended to protect anyone from being offended or having their feelings hurt. The judge in this case ruled to protect the sensitivities of a non-believing person, and that is selective judgment at best. There are literally millions of sights and sounds that offend my Christian sensibilities, many that I cannot avoid seeing or hearing, but judges rarely if ever rule to silence them. That is free speech, you know.
2) This decision is the culmination of a succession of actions that violate the liberties intended by the framers. The first was to mandate public education for everyone, not a bad idea until virtually all control gradually passed to the federal government, plainly violating both the Ninth Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and the Tenth, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
A diversity of locally-controlled, local schools would allow students to attend schools that suit the preferences of themselves and their families. As it is, our Christian heritage has been systematically excised from the teaching, textbooks, and classrooms of all public schools, which all must attend unless parents make a substantial commitment to provide an alternative, thus making it the most egregious violation of the First Amendment. Banning school prayer or Bible classes strongly implies that religion in general and Christianity in particular are somehow illegal, especially to younger students without the maturity to understand the reasoning that defies the understanding of many adults!
3) The freedoms we have enjoyed and that are now threatened were the result of a willing tolerance by Christians of those who disagreed. Historically, those “religions” were what we now call denominations, although they tolerated Judaism, too. The issue was a fear that one group, specifically either Catholic or Protestant, would use the power of the federal government to persecute the other. Numerous statements by virtually all the founders confirm their intent to protect public religious expression, not squelch it. Furthermore, our leaders have often expressed the critical importance of the positive effect of religion on character to protect our democracy from oppression and oppressors. Such things as “In God we Trust” on our money and the continued presence of Congressional chaplains demonstrate the original intent far better than the twisted logic now used to attempt to change them. Unfortunately, judges now use the First Amendment to institutionalize intolerance of religion and of the Christian majority.
4) I lived in a community that tried to use a “privately sponsored baccalaureate service” as you suggested. It was a continuing source of conflict. The public school either wanted to control it or bury it; the institutional hostility to religion in many places has no interest in protecting free exercise of religion. Furthermore, public schools often seem determined to make it impossible for a young person to participate in church or even family life. School activities so fill the week that even Sunday mornings may force a child to choose between a favorite school activity and church.
5) Finally, a favorite prediction is that Christians on the right want to set up some sort of intolerant theocracy, the very thing that the Christians sought to avoid by coming to this country. It is exasperating to have experts, such as yourself, consent to this absurd suggestion by referring to the majority’s wishes regarding a graduation prayer as “mobocracy.” The very real dangers of democratic abuse do indeed exist today; however, the abuse of power by an elite minority via activist courts is a far more imminent danger. We both know that there may be substantial religious apathy, but there is no such thing as religious neutrality. Promoting public secularism is supporting anti-religious activism. It is sad to think that a “first amendment” organization stands for that.
Dear Mr. Haynes,
I read both of your “graduation prayer” columns, I still firmly agree with the majority. I am distressed that a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center would seem to take a position so far removed from the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.” Despite the way that recent courts have distorted the clear intent of the founders, some things are still pretty obvious.
1) Nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights intended to protect anyone from being offended or having their feelings hurt. The judge in this case ruled to protect the sensitivities of a non-believing person, and that is selective judgment at best. There are literally millions of sights and sounds that offend my Christian sensibilities, many that I cannot avoid seeing or hearing, but judges rarely if ever rule to silence them. That is free speech, you know.
2) This decision is the culmination of a succession of actions that violate the liberties intended by the framers. The first was to mandate public education for everyone, not a bad idea until virtually all control gradually passed to the federal government, plainly violating both the Ninth Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and the Tenth, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
A diversity of locally-controlled, local schools would allow students to attend schools that suit the preferences of themselves and their families. As it is, our Christian heritage has been systematically excised from the teaching, textbooks, and classrooms of all public schools, which all must attend unless parents make a substantial commitment to provide an alternative, thus making it the most egregious violation of the First Amendment. Banning school prayer or Bible classes strongly implies that religion in general and Christianity in particular are somehow illegal, especially to younger students without the maturity to understand the reasoning that defies the understanding of many adults!
3) The freedoms we have enjoyed and that are now threatened were the result of a willing tolerance by Christians of those who disagreed. Historically, those “religions” were what we now call denominations, although they tolerated Judaism, too. The issue was a fear that one group, specifically either Catholic or Protestant, would use the power of the federal government to persecute the other. Numerous statements by virtually all the founders confirm their intent to protect public religious expression, not squelch it. Furthermore, our leaders have often expressed the critical importance of the positive effect of religion on character to protect our democracy from oppression and oppressors. Such things as “In God we Trust” on our money and the continued presence of Congressional chaplains demonstrate the original intent far better than the twisted logic now used to attempt to change them. Unfortunately, judges now use the First Amendment to institutionalize intolerance of religion and of the Christian majority.
4) I lived in a community that tried to use a “privately sponsored baccalaureate service” as you suggested. It was a continuing source of conflict. The public school either wanted to control it or bury it; the institutional hostility to religion in many places has no interest in protecting free exercise of religion. Furthermore, public schools often seem determined to make it impossible for a young person to participate in church or even family life. School activities so fill the week that even Sunday mornings may force a child to choose between a favorite school activity and church.
5) Finally, a favorite prediction is that Christians on the right want to set up some sort of intolerant theocracy, the very thing that the Christians sought to avoid by coming to this country. It is exasperating to have experts, such as yourself, consent to this absurd suggestion by referring to the majority’s wishes regarding a graduation prayer as “mobocracy.” The very real dangers of democratic abuse do indeed exist today; however, the abuse of power by an elite minority via activist courts is a far more imminent danger. We both know that there may be substantial religious apathy, but there is no such thing as religious neutrality. Promoting public secularism is supporting anti-religious activism. It is sad to think that a “first amendment” organization stands for that.
Comments