The Law:
"In each public school classroom the teacher in charge shall observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day."
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, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This shouldn't bother me. There is nothing explicitly unconstitutional about this law. The state is not compelling students to participate in a particular religion, leaving the establishment clause out of it. Nor are they forcing kids to pray (though the law is explicitly suggesting it) meaning that it squeaks past the free exercise clause by the skin of its teeth. But here are my two questions:
1) Why is this so important that it has to be dictated by law?
2) This opens the door for potential abuse. It's not a difficult step, in a homogenous community, between optional prayer and mandatory prayer. Is a solitary moment of silence worth the possibility that this will codify religion in certain settings?
Contrary to popular belief, it's not illegal to pray in public schools. Kids can get together and pray as loud as they want together. Teachers can put together voluntary religious groups where kids can talk about how great their beliefs are. Honestly, while I don't participate in any religion (or proselytize as an atheist), I think prayer can help center certain people and even for myself, I don't mind the idea of a moment of silence to put my brain in order at the beginning of the day. But the fact that this was so important that someone would draft a law, put it through the legislative process, and then override a gubernatorial veto for it means that there's an agenda here. The fact that prayer is explicitly mentioned and suggested in this law tells me it's a religious agenda. There are plenty of opportunities for kids to pray: at home with their parents, for example. At church. Not to mention the other mandatory quiet time kids have in school: When I was in grade school, we had mandatory silent reading time, and when I got older, we had study hall. It's so unnecessary to pass a law specifically bringing prayer into question. Are people so scared that children might not be religious enough that they're going to put the first amendment at risk (and that's all it is right now, a risk) to afford children another opportunity to pray? I respect people of faith wanting to keep God in their lives at all times and places: however, it is possible to remain faithful without legislating time into kids days for optional prayer. Are people really so scared that their kids aren't religious enough that they have to keep forcing this issue and dancing on the line of constitutionality?
No comments:
Post a Comment