Publicly Funded Schools Can’t Encourage Prayer
I have read the recent letters about the subject of religion in schools. I am absolutely shocked at some of the responses that people have given. It would seem that the majority consensus would be to allow state sponsored prayer in our schools. This is pure and utter folly and it is illegal.
Our country was founded upon principles such as “freedom of religion” and “separation of church and state.” Whoever it was that wrote in and said that the separation of church and state was meant to keep the state out of the church and not the church out of the state is ignorant.
I understand that many people in our area have a very strong religious sentiment. They, just as I do, try to make sense of our existence. This is the essence of human nature. I cannot fault them for that. However, what I do find fault in is their insistence that their religion somehow influence the way that our government runs. Ask yourself, do you really want a Christian view to control the way that our laws are made? If you answered yes to that question then you do not want a democracy in our country. You support a theocracy. Our government was founded so that all people, regardless of religion, have a say in the way that things are run.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be prayer in schools. If you or your children want to pray in school then that is your right granted by the First Amendment of our Constitution.
All I’m saying is that as long as that school receives government funding it should not be school-sponsored. Despite the fact that we live in the “Bible belt,” there are people who have views that differ from Christianity. Those views should not be forced upon them, regardless if it is one person or a hundred.
Robert Nelson Jr.
Bluff City, Tenn.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Dear Gal, I appreciate where your views are coming from but disagree with some of your conclusions. When you say that our country has grown, that infers that we are somehow better off than we were 200 years ago. While I also applaud religious freedom and can accept that everyone must have the ability to worship or not worship as their conscience dictates, I also understand that the historical heritage of our country is important. I view it as a problem that we have lost all sense that there are moral absolutes. Our forefathers did not have difficulty with this, even though they did not push for a single brand of Chrsitianity. Issues like sexual assaults, child pornography, and abortion would not have been tolerated, in spite of the first amendment. As a nation that has slid into moral relativism (especially since the publishing of Joseph Fletcher’s Situation Ethics), we as a culture view that what is unacceptable today may not be unacceptable tomorrow. I assume that you are okay with that. With that being said and using your own argument, would you still feel okay with it if the public view shifts in five years and we adopt a public morality that says that women can no longer vote, it’s okay for children to be sold into sexual slavery, all women must wear head coverings out in public, anyone over the age of 70 must be euthanized, etc.? As ridiculous as these examples may sound, it is the logical conclusion of moral relativism that anything can become acceptable. This country was founded on an assumption that Judeo-Christian morality was right and just, albeit not perfect. What we have become is a nation without a moral compass and we are much poorer for it. You may think we have made great strides. In some areas we have. But in perhaps the most important areas, we have become slaves to the tyranny of public opinion. As someone professionally trained as a counselor, I have seen the psychology industry change its diagnostic manuals three times since I completed graduate school and many of the changes were wrought because of political correctness rather than true science.
I personally do not care if a bar is located next door to a church. Most “blue laws” were a confusion of pietism with religious faith. What I do care about is that the morals that this country was founded upon not be eroded any further. Just because the demographic make-up of our country changes over time, this does not mean that we should lose the essential character of our country. For example, we now have many residents of Muslim or Mexican heritage. It is a demographic fact that their birth rates are higher than are those of natural born Americans. Does that therefore mean that in 20 years America should be an Islamic state or a territory of Mexico? The purely democratic answer would be, “sure”. I do not think so. America should remain what it was founded as, a republic with a distinctly Christian orientation. America has always had a significant portion of its population who were not Christians. And yet the premise of what we held as standards of right and wrong were Christian. That does not take away liberty from those who do not wish to practice the Christian faith, but it does elimiate their ability to forever change our country’s basic nature.
Mr. Cottrill,
This country was based upon just that, freedom of religion. In those times, yes Christianity was what they were trying to fight for. However, our country has grown since then offering religious freedom to all. You can’t have it both ways, you may have religious freedom or you may have your right for your particular religion to express their said values and complete influence on the government.
My example with Muslims, was just that… an example. I am quite grateful for my rights to speak as you claim. However, they are not as a direct result of Christianity but are a result of the pure expression of religious freedom. Women’s rights have given me the opportunity to express my opinions.
It may have been here or another editorial that someone suggested the separation of church and state? Church is obviously not kept out of the state as much as is claimed or there would be no Blue Law(I know there is not one in the state of TN). Also, there would be no law regarding how far away a bar has to be from a church. In which yes, the church has uprooted many successful businesses (No need for anyone’s opinion on bars and alcohol) as they are businesses none the less.
However, to give one religion more “say- so” over laws than any other religion is pure prejudice.
Right now as it stands we have a christian president (no pun intended) that can’t make several decisions for our country as a whole because of his religious morals. I.E. Gay Marriage, and abortion. I DO NOT SUPPORT ABORTION!!! However, my point is this when a particular religion is used to govern the people of many different religions the end result is destruction from within which I fear we are ultimately headed for.
Dear smalltowngal, I have not weighed in in several days on this but I wanted to bring something up. During the original constitutional convention, there was a time when the delegates could not come to any agreement and Benjamin Franklin suggested that the convention pray and turn to God for assistance in reaching a consensus. My point being, this was not a moment of silence or a prayer to some generic deity. The record shows, at least what I learned in government school, that all of the delegates concurred. I wonder what the ACLU would have said to Franklin’s suggestion. This discussion has pretty much wound down, but I want to support something kdr1 alluded to, namely that even the strictly secularist wants the values that Christianity encourages, without the trappings of the religion. I don’t want to get too theological here but there really is no such thing as a good person. In a purely objective sense, everyone is corrupt (a.k.a sinful) and whatever claims you or others may have to altruistic motives, human behavior, even at its best, is as filthy rags without the grace of God. It is a divine gift that the vestiges of His goodness sometimes come out in human behavior. But left to our own devices, we slander, kill, and harm others. And then we rationalize our sins and pretend that they are really not that bad. Unfortunately, throughout history, even Christians have confused their own nationalism or religious views with a justification for selfish imperialism. But kdr1 is right, no Muslim country would ever allow you as a woman to even express your views in this manner. You have the Christian values imparted by our forefathers to thank for that.
foxsux,
I believe Mr. Nelsons letter is linked to the previous discussion about the ACLU. At least the timinng of the letter suggest the previous subject of the ACLU prompted it. I was pointing out the fact that is was not a forced prayer or school sponsored prayer.
Robert Nelson wrote “I’m saying is that as long as that school receives government funding it should not be school-sponsored. “
kdr1, It would seem as if you have strayed from commenting on the letter to the editor abouve. Remember that?
I have been staying on topic myself.
fox sux wrote “Your argument is exactly the reason why students should not be forced to participate in state sponsored prayer, or even be forced to opt out of such an activity.“
No one was forced to pray! Someone (one person) heard a prayer and wrote the ACLU. That is petty and rediculous. I also think it is funny that people want Christian values without Christian faith; it will not happen.
commonsense, you wrote “It’s whether Govt is going to permit people to acknowledge presence of a God at all- that is the point.“
As suggested in the other thread, you really do need to change yrou name.
The school prayer issue addressed in the letter above has nothing to do with “whether Govt is going to permit people to acknowledge presence of a God at all” as you suggest.
That has never been the issue of this thread. No wonder you are having such a hard time staying on topic. You don’t even know waht the topic is.
No, Fox- you’re not reading.
It’s whether Govt is going to permit people to acknowledge presence of a God at all- that is the point.
Nothing to do with a specific religion.
You’re ignoring my ENTIRE point.
commonsense. once again you have completely missed the point.
Whether it be Christian, athiest, or Muslim oriented activities, it should not be allowed in state sponsored schools.
Those things do not need to be eliminated, just not promoted in state sponsored schools, by the state sponsored schools.
kdr1, once again you are proving that the shoe is very likely to fit.
Your argument is exactly the reason why students should not be forced to participate in state sponsored prayer, or even be forced to opt out of such an activity.
It is becuase we are not like other countries.
Advertisement