That was the senior quote of one of my good friends in high school. He had hoped to include that in the yearbook, where the seniors put their quotes, yet when he got his yearbook, the word pray was replaced with the word hope. Of course, to us 18 year olds, this was an outrage! The school abridged his right to free speech, and changed his words. What we couldn't see, of course, was the potential tacit approval of religion by the school in allowing the word pray. Personally, I still think that's a bit of a stretch, even in the context of establishment clause, but I can at least see it now.
Schools aren't allowed to impliedly endorse religion. Religion is something that is to be kept from school. That isn't to say that schools can't teach topics that have religious overtones, that would be nearly impossible. You can't teach history without discussing the Crusades, unless No Child Left Behind deems the Crusades unimportant. It's all but impossible for band, orchestra, or choir to perform classical music that doesn't have ties to religion. The thing is, you can teach about the existence of religion, you just can't prosthelytize (I'm not going to spell check that, so if it's wrong, I don't care).
One thing schools can't do is lead prayer. They can't start administrative meetings, school days, graduations, etc. with prayer, even if non-religious types are free to leave the room or not participate. I can understand that. If it were allowed, it would create an environment that was uncomfortable at the least for the non-religious or those of different religion. Additionally, it draws a very clear line of demarcation. This line extends to student-led prayer on school grounds. Again, this is a fairly bright line, and I can appreciate that. I had a friend in high school who roudnly criticized myself and several of my friends for not joining her and others in a prayer vigil between classes for a classmate who'd been hospitalized. I appreciated her desire to do so, but disagreed with the choice of venue and the cajoling nature of her argument.
Now, it's fairly well established in the public education realm that prayer and religion are personal items that can be utilized on a personal level - I can pray before lunch quietly to myself. There's nothing wrong with that. How does that extend to the military?
When I was in the Air Force, prior to several commander's calls - mostly at training squadrons (schools), the Squadron Commander had the base chaplain lead us in an invocation. At the school graduations, the flight commander did likewise. The commanders justified these acts by stating those who wished not to participate were free to not pray with everyone else. They still had to bow their heads and stay in the room, but they didn't have to pray.
I will say I have problems, especially after my entry into law school, understanding how prayer can not be allowed in public schools, which makes sense to me, but can be allowed in the military schools. I don't see any fundamental difference in many aspects - it's a school, it's government funded, it amounts to prosthelityzing, and it carries the implication of government endorsement of one religion. Even if we eliminate the school aspect of it, we have a situation where the military is compelling religious behavior under the rationale that some people want it.
I think the intention is honorable, I just think it's misplaced, especially in a melting pot environment such as the military.
1 comment:
This is a great post--I wish I had more time to comment on it in depth.
Here's my laugh for the day, however: "You can't teach history without discussing the Crusades, unless No Child Left Behind deems the Crusades unimportant." They must be important, since Bush said we were going to undertake one after 9-11.
Post a Comment