Ala. House Education Committee passes bill requiring teachers to pray in school

[Iniquitous]

Source

So, apparently Alabama has forgotten what the Constitution says about the separation of Church and State. This bill, sponsored by (surprise! It's a republican) Rep. Steve Hurst, R-Munford, requires that every teacher spend the first 15 minutes of class each day to read, verbatim, opening prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. (I have issues with there being prayers before the opening sessions of my government but that is a different rant.)

I am glad my kids are out of school. I am glad I never had to argue with anyone about them shoving religion down their throats. But I worry for the kids now and my future grandchildren (assuming I get any of course). This shit is getting ridiculous.

[Shjade]

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Steve Hurst, R-Munford, would require teachers to spend no more than 15 minutes in the first class of each day to read, verbatim, opening prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.

That is considerably different from requiring them to spend the first 15 minutes of class to read prayers. What I'm unclear on from this article alone is whether it's supposed to require them to read specific prayers or a certain number of prayers or what, because if it's as simple as "spend no more than 15 minutes doing this," you can satisfy that condition by...not praying at all.

[Iniquitous]

That is considerably different from requiring them to spend the first 15 minutes of class to read prayers. What I'm unclear on from this article alone is whether it's supposed to require them to read specific prayers or a certain number of prayers or what, because if it's as simple as "spend no more than 15 minutes doing this," you can satisfy that condition by...not praying at all.

It tells you what they have to do - read, verbatim, the prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Reps or the U.S Senate. Which I am currently looking to see if I can find what that prayer is.

[Zakharra]

  If it requires the same specific prayer every day, then it should run into the First Amendment and sink. If it requires any prayer, then that -might- slide if prayers from other denominations and religions are said.

[Oniya]

It tells you what they have to do - read, verbatim, the prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Reps or the U.S Senate. Which I am currently looking to see if I can find what that prayer is.

http://forbes.house.gov/prayercaucus/prayerincongress.aspx

[Mathim]

If people want stereotypes about the Southern states to stop, they should stop pulling crap like this.

[Iniquitous]

http://forbes.house.gov/prayercaucus/prayerincongress.aspx

Thanks Oniya. Had to head into work and wasn't able to do a search.

As for that prayer... yeah. I would haul my kids out of any school that required the teachers to recite that every morning.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

If people want stereotypes of Southern states to stop they should read the articles and notice that only two people of the committee voted for this bill.  The bill was passed on a loophole.

[Blythe]

Quote from the article:

By way of a voice vote, the House Education Policy Committee passed a bill that would require teachers to recite Christian prayers in public schools every day, even though the majority of members did not vote for it.

The part in bold bothers the hell out of me.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The majority of the members are saying they responded with a flat out "no" and there were three members not even in attendance to the meeting. 

[Iniquitous]

Even so, it passed. No one asked for a recount and they could have.

[Valthazar]

I don't like this, and obviously it is unconstitutional.  But when I was growing up in England, I had to sit through a 1 hour class every week where we sang Christian hymns (in public school).  I turned out just fine, am not a Christian, I wasn't brainwashed, and it didn't negatively harm me.  I survived the prayers.

Why people get up-in-arms over these issues, when there are far more significant issues such as predatory lending, the economy/jobs, national security (issues that truly affect all of us), will never cease to amaze me.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

They're hot button issues.  :: shrugs::

[Iniquitous]

I don't like this, and obviously it is unconstitutional.  But when I was growing up in England, I had to sit through a 1 hour class every week where we sang Christian hymns (in public school).  I turned out just fine, am not a Christian, I wasn't brainwashed, and it didn't negatively harm me.  I survived the prayers.

Why people get up-in-arms over these issues, when there are far more significant issues such as predatory lending, the economy/jobs, national security (issues that truly affect all of us), will never cease to amaze me.

Yes, you are right about other issues that are out there being ignored. However, this push for religion (any religion) being sanctioned by the government (state or federal) is unconstitutional.  This country was founded on freedom of religion and to have a state try to push the Christian faith on both students and teachers regardless of their individual faiths or lack thereof is a smack in the face. Yes, it is a hot button issue. I certainly do not need a state to shove a religion down the throat of my children. Religious belief is a deeply personal choice and should be respected as such... and a protected right.

[Oniya]

If people want stereotypes of Southern states to stop they should read the articles and notice that only two people of the committee voted for this bill.  The bill was passed on a loophole.

That's gotta be some seriously warped loophole.

[Iniquitous]

That's gotta be some seriously warped loophole.

House clerk Jeff Woodard said the Chairman of each committee has the discretion to decide the outcome of a voice vote. Committee members can request a roll call votes if there's a dispute,  but none of the Education Policy Committee members did.

There's your loophole. Allowing one person the right to decide voice votes. That person can sit back and say "I heard more yea than nay". Talk about being screwed if you are against a bill.

[Ms Gavane]

This country was founded on freedom of religion and to have a state try to push the Christian faith on both students and teachers regardless of their individual faiths or lack thereof is a smack in the face.

Please read all the way to the end before you decide to hate me. And forgive my phone for any spelling or grammar errors.

Unfortunately this country was not founded on freedom of religion. It was founded with the idea that people should be free to practice any religion they want. It was founded by a narrow-minded group of people with some really big ideas. They knew what had happened in the past and wanted to stop it from continuing to happen. So they created a chatted that could one day lead to a land of civil freedom. Never in their wildest dreams did they imagine that following this charter would require them to give up their religious beliefs. Even if those beliefs were contradictory to the Constitution that they had created.

The truth is that the freedom that we talk about here has never existed before. even the freedom that we currently enjoy is a new creature. Civic equality and freedom are very close, in my opinion, but they aren't here yet and they never have been. Every freedom that we enjoy is one that we have fought to gain, and there will be people who fight to push it back the other way. This law is a sign of the death throes of an old system. Yes we should continue to fight against it, but the fact that this loophole was the best effort that they could muster is a good sign.

I guess that my point is, don't get too worked up over these stupid lawsbecause they are a sign that the opposition is getting weak and desperate.

Now if you want to talk about financial freedom and segregation of working classes, I'll get all riled up with you about that.

[chaoslord29]

Reactionary responses to laws like these don't help anyone. It only encourages and inspires the more fundamentalist elements of the religious right to keep doing the same thing. The failing here is definitely on the legislative process for having a loophole that could pass a law along these lines, but the real problem will be if people start calling for arms being taken up in turn against religious organizations.

Best case scenario, let the teachers and students pay lip service to the prayers until the legislature can get it's act together and repeal the damn thing, and let everyone laugh about it behind the backs of the fundamentalists in the mean time. Better to pity them than get angry for these kind of desperation tactics. It seems strange to me that more atheist and secularly-minded folks don't do more to support religious moderates, since it's the more liberal and progressive churches who really strike at the core of what the evangelicals and fundamentalists stand for.

When an atheist criticizes a conservative/traditionalist Christian for believing in a bunch of superstitious nonsense, they can be dismissed as a non-believer who doesn't really understand. When a fellow Christian who happens to be from say, the Episcopal Church, criticizes that fundamentalist for exactly the same thing, you're fighting them on their own terms, and winning.

[Iniquitous]

Please read all the way to the end before you decide to hate me. And forgive my phone for any spelling or grammar errors.

Unfortunately this country was not founded on freedom of religion. It was founded with the idea that people should be free to practice any religion they want. It was founded by a narrow-minded group of people with some really big ideas. They knew what had happened in the past and wanted to stop it from continuing to happen. So they created a chatted that could one day lead to a land of civil freedom. Never in their wildest dreams did they imagine that following this charter would require them to give up their religious beliefs. Even if those beliefs were contradictory to the Constitution that they had created.

The truth is that the freedom that we talk about here has never existed before. even the freedom that we currently enjoy is a new creature. Civic equality and freedom are very close, in my opinion, but they aren't here yet and they never have been. Every freedom that we enjoy is one that we have fought to gain, and there will be people who fight to push it back the other way. This law is a sign of the death throes of an old system. Yes we should continue to fight against it, but the fact that this loophole was the best effort that they could muster is a good sign.

I guess that my point is, don't get too worked up over these stupid lawsbecause they are a sign that the opposition is getting weak and desperate.

Now if you want to talk about financial freedom and segregation of working classes, I'll get all riled up with you about that.

I am not sure where to start here. Either with the fact that you just repeated what I said, only using different words or the fact that this is NOT a sign of the death throes of the old system. I'll start with your first statement - the part I put in bold.

We are saying the same thing, just using different words. But, let me reiterate what I said. America was founded on the freedom of religion. The Framers believed, and desired, that the country they were forming would never have a state (meaning government) endorsed/controlled religion - such as England had/has in the Church of England. They had seen and knew quite well the hell that came from a government trying to say one particular sect was the way everyone had to worship. After all, England had been in an uproar over religion since King Henry VIII decided to ditch his first wife in favor of Anne Boleyn and it had lead to deaths and exiles from their home country.

((History tidbit - Now, contrary to popular belief - the pilgrims (Puritans) were not the first religious exiles in what would become the US. The Catholic's were - and they settled in Mary's Land - aka Maryland. The Puritans ended up exiled themselves after exiling the Catholics because they became too extreme for the rest of the Church of England.))

Alright, so - since we are saying the exact same thing, I can only assume you thought I meant "freedom from religion". I did not. Freedom from religion was not what the Framers had in mind when they set up the Constitution because, at the time, not participating in some Church was unthinkable. The church, in any of it's forms, took up a large chunk of whatever free time you had. If you didn't worship, you stood the chance of being ousted from the community (at best) or being accused of witchcraft (at worst).

Freedom from religion is a much more recent thought and is usually included under the umbrella of "freedom of religion" since the term freedom of religion does, in fact, mean the right to worship (or not) as you see fit.

On to the second thing. This is not the death throes of an old system. It is the continued war from the religious right - a particular sect of the government that still has an amazingly strong grip on the government. This is not something to shrug at and go "oh it's just those death throes again. Nothing to worry about." because the moment that idea takes hold, they get even more control. Unless of course the idea of a Christian Taliban is something that is liked. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to sit back and poo-poo articles like this because I remember the old adage my dad says.

Put a frog in boiling water it jumps right out. Put a frog in cold water and warm it up slowly, it'll sit there till it's too late.

[Callie Del Noire]

I've been telling my progressive friends for a long long long time that there would be a snap back in more conservative corners and that it would be pretty big. This, to me, is the start of it. I know a lot of folks who are sitting on the fence with a 'folks can do what they want, just don't ask me to take part' attitude and last years mess with the 'You WILL do THIS or go to jail decision' involving the photographer and cake maker was a bit of a shake to them.

Remember, the people I am referring to remember when it was illegal for a mix ethnicity couple (the Mann Act) to marry. These folks have changed mentally and socially, not everyone adjusts as fast. And coming down this hard on folks.. it's scary. 

Coming in with lawsuits and such has triggered a worry that you can be sued for disagreeing with someone on a variety of levels.

Personally? I think we're way too litigious

[chaoslord29]

On to the second thing. This is not the death throes of an old system. It is the continued war from the religious right - a particular sect of the government that still has an amazingly strong grip on the government. This is not something to shrug at and go "oh it's just those death throes again. Nothing to worry about." because the moment that idea takes hold, they get even more control. Unless of course the idea of a Christian Taliban is something that is liked. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to sit back and poo-poo articles like this because I remember the old adage my dad says.

Put a frog in boiling water it jumps right out. Put a frog in cold water and warm it up slowly, it'll sit there till it's too late.

You're responding to this with the same reactionary response that you're criticizing them though for. As long as you view it as a 'war' of us vs them, you're only begetting conflict which benefits them a lot more than us more progressive types. As long as religion is a hot-button issue, the Republicans will continue to use it as a rallying point for the base, and that's exactly what petty legislation in regards to school prayer and the pledge of allegiance are designed to do: stir up trouble without actually changing the status quo. The reason Bush administration never really tackled abortion (like he promised to in his campaign) was that the party knew it was political suicide to do anything at a federal level, so they just scaled back Justice Department involvement and made it a 'state's rights' issue which allowed individual constituencies to get as crazy as they liked, forcing the Dems to be the one to call for federal or judicial intervention, and thus making them the 'bad guys' to the religious right.

The point is as long as you come at the conservative religious right as an outsider, you will never gain any ground with them and only further the conflict. If you claim to be a progressive and a liberal, at some point you have to be willing to be reasonable with your opponent, but if your opponent is a fundamentalist conservative christian, they can operate entirely on faith, without ever engaging with whatever rational arguments you put in front of them. Allow me to illustrate:

[Sabby]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pigeon%20chess

[chaoslord29]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pigeon%20chess

Precisely. Take it from someone who knows, Atheists debating Fundamentalists is purely masturbatory for both sides.

Moderate Christians, Progressive Christians, and dare-I-bring up Intellectual Christians however strike at the core of Fundamentalism and Right-Wing Christian politicization. They demonstrate that it's possible to maintain organized religion as a force for good and cultural advancement, preserving the pageantry and tradition which positive communities are built around without succumbing to the superstition and fear-mongering which are not unique to Religious Conservatives (of any faith).

[kylie]

           Text of the bill, I believe.  Under 2pp.  Amazingly short, unless they just aim to be blunter in Alabama.  With all the white space, the abstract is nearly half of it:

To prescribe a period of time in the public schools
19 not to exceed 15 minutes for study of the formal procedures
20 followed by the United States Congress, which study shall
21 include a reading verbatim of one of the opening prayers given
22 by the House or Senate Chaplain or a guest member of the
23 clergy at the beginning of a meeting of the United States
24 House of Representatives or Senate.

         Well, they bothered to pass it off as a "study" of religion in national traditions at least.   ::)  Though it's sort of like we should "study conflicting opinions" about evolution or global warming, regardless of scientific findings I suppose...

         I guess if Alabama teachers can pick any prayer ever offered in Congress, there might be some interesting exceptional days one could dig up.  I wonder if someone hasn't given a very tongue-in-cheek or tiny prayer offering at some point in Congressional history.  Maybe even a wordless prayer where they just hum an obscure, melodic tune?  Some Congressional prayers have, at least, been given by other than Christian clergy.  (And incidentally, Christian groups have sometimes shown up to protest that.)

         But the whole thing is icky.  We may not have enforced separation of church and state thoroughly to date...  But here it gets worse.  Bit by bit, or otherwise. 

The point is as long as you come at the conservative religious right as an outsider, you will never gain any ground with them and only further the conflict. If you claim to be a progressive and a liberal, at some point you have to be willing to be reasonable with your opponent, but if your opponent is a fundamentalist conservative christian, they can operate entirely on faith, without ever engaging with whatever rational arguments you put in front of them. Allow me to illustrate...

        You lost me when you said that they only need faith, and then asked me to be reasonable.  If faith isn't reasonable, no amount of reason will stop people from whatever the hell they are up to -- whether prayer in schools or blowing up buildings -- but that doesn't mean I'm "reasonable" to accept it.  I don't take it for granted that there are not other practical, political ways to limit it such as the courts (if they are being sane this year) or civil disobedience, if that's what it takes.  Who knows, maybe tying up others in debate "knots" can even be fulfilling if this mutual "waste" of times means they are not accomplishing something you consider worse just then.

          The "friendly debate over chess" picture is misleading in that regard...  When it's often just a tiny vocal minority of people that well, even other conservatives repeatedly refuse to stand up to -- see what happened in the legislative session described in the article.  Who is really not being reasonable?  It's hardly something a chess game is going to resolve.  And some of the people who want specific, religious-based policy are the same people tromping over college campuses with big flaming signs about all the gays (and often, in one basket, the liberals) going to HELL (all in big letters really).  Just because some nut published a (quite possibly mistaken, never properly translated) new Bible saying so. 

        You want me to sit down and play a nice game of chess in the library with that?  It's all I can do to be half civil to them in the public square, try to see what they'll say to what I consider reason...  And then I get people shouting at me for being polite when their whole presentation wasn't.  And I'm not sure I can even blame them for blaming me for trying in that case.  Are people not right to say, that isn't worth talking to because it came with "You are wicked and damned," and so not "Let's talk nice."  And yes I am talking about stuff that happened in the South.  Georgia, to be specific though that particular group trucked up from Florida all along the coast as I recall. 

        The left generally is a little fed up and coming with another version of 'you're wicked,' perhaps (it's actually more like criminal or prejudiced or something specific but hey I'll let it pass) -- but they have more pragmatic reasons and more social justice behind them than 'This book [which we really don't know the history of generally] says so and our pastor insists.'  If you think it's all just everyone's opinion, then evidence be damned and you can hop off a window and see what happens.  I'm tired of people trying to boil it down to every opinion must be equal, but no one has any right to get mad.  Look at the Vietnam War era.  A whole lot of anger for very good reasons, facing off with a whole lot of government violence for rather different reasons -- often facing a messed up management of policy if not downright dirty, cover your ass reasons.  There are still very good liberal professors out there who were active in that time in the marches, who remember when more people had the guts to get in the street or leave the country if necessary to do what they felt was right, and build lots of small-scale alternatives for as long as it took until something gave.  And they were flaming mad at times. 

         There is no such neat consensus, as you suggest, that political liberals (in the activist sense that it meant in that time) were wrong to struggle and be loud and flatly critical.  There is no holy writ (ahem) that says being liberal means no one is allowed to get mad at gross abuses and blind faith flying in the face of evidence about what is going on in the world.  You're confusing "liberal" politics with neoliberal business culture there, I think.  And what neoliberal business wants is not the equality more liberal politics would demand.  Different animals, if often in a confused relationship. 

        I honestly think some people, including many on the right, think liberals have invented all these neat rules about manners and discourse just for the sake of inventing rules to sound "nice," and not because there are underlying ideas about social justice those rules are also supposed to pursue.  And the right often tries to use the same form without pursuing the same ideals the form was originally cultivated to serve...  Often a very out of context manipulation of language.  It falls apart because when you follow the whole logic, well...  It's a little bit like Putin saying he must be the really democratic figure, because he refrains from intervening with force to topple Assad.  Rightists and many conservatives now adopt this faux civility line: of course to get mad and meddle in others' business would be uncivil, and you'd be wrong no matter what they are doing with the world, right?  Or pick your case of people backing a hard, exploitative line while jumping on others for not being "nice" enough.
 

[vtboy]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pigeon%20chess

But then there is the regrettable distinction that one is not permitted to poison the fundamentalists. Perhaps, though, a loophole may be found.... 

Precisely. Take it from someone who knows, Atheists debating Fundamentalists is purely masturbatory for both sides.

The point is not to debate them; it is to prevent them from manipulating the levers of temporal power to impose their own religious agenda through the public institutions of what is supposed to be a secular democracy. And, however pigeon-like the fundamentalists may be intellectually, they have demonstrated considerable political aptitude when it comes to getting states and municipalities, and sometimes the federal government, to enact statutes and regulations which suit their agenda. Witness, for example, the spread of state laws restricting abortion access and permitting pharmacists to decline to fill birth control prescriptions, the Bush administration's ban on stem cell research with new stem cell lines, school boards which have attempted to get creation "science" into textbooks, and, most recently, the Arizona bill which would grant a defense to lawlessness based on religious scruple (contrary to media spin, the defense is not limited to those who would refuse the custom of gays which, I believe, is legal in most jurisdictions).

I am entirely with IO on this. These people are not harmless. They will not retire to their caves if we ignore them. And, I see no evidence to make me believe that moderate Christians, progressive Christians, and intellectual Christians are able or willing to keep the fruitcake Christians, the terrorist Christians and the learning disabled Christians (or similar types of other faiths) in line through gentle persuasion. 

I will overlook the knock on masturbation.

[Sabby]

I do agree that conversing with these kinds of people is pointless, but only if your intention is to sway them. I consider that extremely unlikely, but it's usually not my intention anyway. Whenever I engage a shouting lunatic, it's not to make him consider the possibility that Hell don't exist, it's the people at the bus stop who are on the fence I'm more interested in. They are the ones who will remember that conversation and take it into consideration when evolving their opinion.

They're the ones that matter.

Apologies for the rather robotic post. I am very tired.

[chaoslord29]

But then there is the regrettable distinction that one is not permitted to poison the fundamentalists. Perhaps, though, a loophole may be found.... 

The point is not to debate them; it is to prevent them from manipulating the levers of temporal power to impose their own religious agenda through the public institutions of what is supposed to be a secular democracy. And, however pigeon-like the fundamentalists may be intellectually, they have demonstrated considerable political aptitude when it comes to getting states and municipalities, and sometimes the federal government, to enact statutes and regulations which suit their agenda. Witness, for example, the spread of state laws restricting abortion access and permitting pharmacists to decline to fill birth control prescriptions, the Bush administration's ban on stem cell research with new stem cell lines, school boards which have attempted to get creation "science" into textbooks, and, most recently, the Arizona bill which would grant a defense to lawlessness based on religious scruple (contrary to media spin, the defense is not limited to those who would refuse the custom of gays which, I believe, is legal in most jurisdictions).

I am entirely with IO on this. These people are not harmless. They will not retire to their caves if we ignore them. And, I see no evidence to make me believe that moderate Christians, progressive Christians, and intellectual Christians are able or willing to keep the fruitcake Christians, the terrorist Christians and the learning disabled Christians (or similar types of other faiths) in line through gentle persuasion. 

I will overlook the knock on masturbation.

Their political clout is a product of the Party at large which patronizes them because they continue to serve as an easily mobilized and manipulated bloc of voters. Ignore them, and you strike at the heart of their power: Their ability to get noticed. I'm not saying their harmless, I'm saying their power persists because the Democrats and the Republicans are content with the status quo. Both sides perpetuate 'shouting match' politics because it allows them to preserve their hold on their respective constituencies (more traditional or more progressively minded folks) without actually having to engage the other or fix anything. By shouting back and engaging with them, we perepetuate their perceived power, when they are truly only a vocal minority.

I'm not suggesting that they'll "retire to their caves", I'm suggesting the truly long term solution: We facilitate their death by "natural" causes. Cut the dead weight, focus on saving the generation of children they might possibly indoctrinate with their misguided ideals by providing them an outlet for faith and community that doesn't involve burning crosses and persecuting gays. It's not about moderate Christians keeping the more radical in-line, it's about them providing an alternative for people who want to keep the faith, but aren't comfortable with the sort of prejudice and ignorance perpetuated by the fundies (fundamentalists). Statistically speaking, Right-Wing Conservative Christians are the perfect example of a vocal minority, and in addition, they are old. Old enough that they have to rely on something other than raising their own kids in order to perpetuate their believes and in a very big way that's what motivates them to focus so heavily on school curriculum and school prayer (and to my way of thinking, abortion and gay marriage too). Their problem is that as much as they might try to indoctrinate the next generation, brainwash their own kids and their relatives kids, it's not %100. I know a few studies that suggest it's not even %50 effective, as kids seem invariably, across demographics to want to rebel, in whatever small way against their parents.

That doesn't mean that half the kids raised by fundies will grow up to be atheists, but if they see the "Old Guard" as embittered, overly-vocal, prejudiced fools (because that's how we treat them), they'll seek an outlet which is familiar to them, but different from their parents way of church. That's where Moderate Christians come in. Or even better, that's where Christian intellectuals and apologists come in. Imagine if all these folks actually studied theologists like CS Lewis and Thomas Aquinas; the kind of Christians who better the whole world not in-spite of their faith, but because of it.

My point is that you're not going to win over anyone's kids by calling their parents idiots. The truly machiavellian solution to the problem of religious conservatism, is to change the terms of the debate so that they favor us, and not them, so that victory is ultimately assured without the fundies ever realizing it. The best way to do that, is to treat like firecrackers instead of hand-grenades; noisy, but only really harmful if you're trying to juggle them as they go off.

[Sabby]

If only politics were run by informed committees representing groups of people, reviewing and discussing information... instead of this necessity driven herding of sheep.

[chaoslord29]

If only politics were run by informed committees representing groups of people, reviewing and discussing information... instead of this necessity driven herding of sheep.

While we're dreaming, I'd like to throw out the idea of aristocracies founded on highest level of education obtained.

[Oniya]

My point is that you're not going to win over anyone's kids by calling their parents idiots.

At least, not until they hit about 15-16.  I think it's in the teen rules that anyone over 30 doesn't know anything.

;)

[TheGlyphstone]

At least, not until they hit about 15-16.  I think it's in the teen rules that anyone over 30 doesn't know anything.

;)

So if you tell a teenager that you know for a fact they are the smartest person alive, does their head explode?

[Oniya]

Nah - just their ego.

[HairyHeretic]

So, hypothetical situation .. what happens if the teacher isn't Christian. What does the law say about forcing someone to pray to a deity they don't believe in? That sounds like definite lawsuit territory to me.

[Sabby]

So, hypothetical situation .. what happens if the teacher isn't Christian. What does the law say about forcing someone to pray to a deity they don't believe in? That sounds like definite lawsuit territory to me.

This applies to many of the students as well.

[Trieste]

Maybe I'm Alabama-brainwashed and don't know it, but stay with me, here.

There are some parents who feel that being exposed to prayer in schools will brainwash their kids (or something) and that religion is the purview of the parents.

There are some parents who feel that being exposed to sex education in schools will brainwash their kids (or something) and that sex ed is the purview of the parents.

It seems to me that it's the purpose of an education to expose kids to things they may or may not be exposed to at home.

I think probably both religion and sex ed are fair topics for coverage in schools. I don't think reading a prayer aloud is forcing someone to pray any more than teaching a kid to use a condom is going to force them to have sex. But if they do choose to do it, they'll have an idea of how.

My take.

[Sabby]

This isn't the same as sex education Trieste. Schools already have Religious studies, just like they have Sex Ed. This isn't Religious studies, this is forced prayer. They are not even remotely the same thing.

[Trieste]

It's possible that in Australia, public schools do have religious studies. I have yet to encounter a public school in the US that has religious studies classes.

Moreover, no one can force you to pray, especially not a teacher reciting a prayer at the front of the class. Just ask bazillions of parochial school students.

Furthermore, schools expose students to more than just what's taught in the classroom. Socialization, lateral thinking, and other useful things are also learned in the school environment without being part of the classroom syllabus. Edit: To clarify, I'm saying here that just because there is a class in something doesn't mean that there shouldn't be more education in it and exposure to it elsewhere, also. Learning at school is not limited to classroom learning.

The way in which it was passed? Not cool. On the other hand, it might inspire more parents to be active in school board elections and meetings. I'm okay with that, too.

[Valthazar]

It's possible that in Australia, public schools do have religious studies. I have yet to encounter a public school in the US that has religious studies classes.

Under US law, religious education (akin to Sunday school) is forbidden in public schools, except from a neutral, academic perspective.  So in other words, a Bible study class is permitted, "without violating constitutional limits, if the class would have to include critical rather than devotional readings and allow open inquiry into the history and content of biblical passages." (Source)

[Trieste]

Under US law, religious education (akin to Sunday school) is forbidden in public schools, except from a neutral, academic perspective.  So in other words, a Bible study class is permitted, "without violating constitutional limits, if the class would have to include critical rather than devotional readings and allow open inquiry into the history and content of biblical passages." (Source)

Thanks, Valthazar.

It should possibly be clarified for international members, however, that rather than having a critical religious studies class or something of the sort, it is my experience that public schools just skip it altogether.

[Sabby]

Forcing a student to verbally pray and having a class or assembly group prayer that you can simply remain silent on are almost the same thing. The former would no doubt generate more friction from students who don't wish to pray, and I doubt it would be enforceable in any public school, but both scenarios are a clear statement from the school which endorses one religion over all others. That's not cool.

If I had been in such a school, I would feel equally angry at being given the option to opt out and remain silent while the rest of the students drone their prayer.

By all means, educate students about cultures and holy books, but do it from an academic stand point. We have history class. That's where the Bible belongs, as a part of history.

[chaoslord29]

Thanks, Valthazar.

It should possibly be clarified for international members, however, that rather than having a critical religious studies class or something of the sort, it is my experience that public schools just skip it altogether.

Sex education is relevant to everyone who will have sex, thus why it is usually mandatory subject matter for public education. By contrast, critical religious studies is . . . well, as someone who studied philosophy I can make a compelling argument that religion is relevant to everyone in their daily lives too, but that's largely academic. Frankly, I think best case scenario would be to include some sort of fundamental philosophy course in public education and include in it a chapter or two on theology and philosophy of religion.

Problem is, prayer isn't theology. Prayer is ritual, meditative practice which conditions faithful individuals with the precepts of their religion. So, if you're not already faithful, prayer doesn't really make you think. Even kids who grow up their whole lives saying the prayers don't necessarily believe in them at any given time; just ask anyone who has rushed through grace before every meal since they were old enough to talk. I don't think there's a danger here about brain washing or the like, either way.

The greater point though is that a Religious Studies or Theology course is well outside the bounds of what most of the conservative religious right wants. What they really want is Sunday School six days a week, with a new lesson about the bible and why Jesus Christ is Lord and their god is the one true God, perhaps not to brainwash, but definitely to validate. It just makes sense from their perspective, since their faith requires that they be right, that what they believe is right should be treated as such by all other people, whether they believe it or not. A religious studies or theology course is one that treats their faith and their religion academically, that is to say, with skepticism; exactly what they don't want.

[Sabby]

I've been crying out for philosophy and critical thinking classes since High School. It's just as important as Math and English.

[Iniquitous]

Maybe I'm Alabama-brainwashed and don't know it, but stay with me, here.

There are some parents who feel that being exposed to prayer in schools will brainwash their kids (or something) and that religion is the purview of the parents.

There are some parents who feel that being exposed to sex education in schools will brainwash their kids (or something) and that sex ed is the purview of the parents.

It seems to me that it's the purpose of an education to expose kids to things they may or may not be exposed to at home.

I think probably both religion and sex ed are fair topics for coverage in schools. I don't think reading a prayer aloud is forcing someone to pray any more than teaching a kid to use a condom is going to force them to have sex. But if they do choose to do it, they'll have an idea of how.

My take.

Exposure to religion is not the purview of the public school system because it is run by the state. It violates that amendment we have (and I’m so very glad for that amendment). The suggestion of a religions studies class - done not only as academic but inclusive of ALL religions - I could get behind. This BS of “teaching” (I use this word lightly) a christian prayer at the start of every day and call it religious studies? Hell no. I certainly did not send my kids to a public school to have a teacher (who is most assuredly NOT educated/trained/ordained to preach/teach religion) try and cram one specific belief system down my children’s throats. I worked damn hard to make sure my children had exposure to many different faiths on regular basis so they could make their own choices. I wouldn’t have appreciated someone not even blood related to my children taking it upon themselves to dictate what faith my child should have while they were at school and without an option to opt out.

I can certainly see where you are coming from. But what I also see is a very slippery slope. “OH hey, we aren’t actually forcing your children to pray to the christian god. We are just “teaching” them HOW to pray.” It wouldn’t take long before that nice line in the sand that says “STOP. NO MORE.” Gets pushed back further and further till all the sudden we have states (lookin at the southern states here) that have full blown religion in the classroom and our rights to not have a religion shoved on us and our children is gone.

[Valthazar]

If I had been in such a school, I would feel equally angry at being given the option to opt out and remain silent while the rest of the students drone their prayer.

Like I said earlier, my public school in England made us sing Christian hymns and prayers.  At the time, I don't think I even knew what I was doing, it was just an awesome break from schoolwork.  I remember one of my Muslim friends would go to another room and read some books instead of coming with the rest of us, and at the time, I had no idea why. 

Afterwards, we'd all play together during recess. 

Obviously this kind of legislation isn't desirable, but kids aren't as fragile about these things as we think.  Being asked to recite a prayer is very different from preaching a religion.

Clearly unconstitutional, but largely benign.

[kylie]

        I'm just guessing from breezing through that language in the bill again...  I think what the proponents might say is, this is not even religious studies.  It's a sort of civics class that describes how we do use prayer in Congress.  That's it.  It happens to give an example.  No one is making anyone pray per se; it's just a recitation for the sake of teaching civics or political organization.  Or I suppose they could try saying that.

        Of course what it actually does, is a daily rubbing in that the supposed separation of church and state has sometimes failed and no one has managed to undo it, nyah nyah now hear more of it.  It's more about saying prayer 'belongs' in government (because it's already tucked in), or at least it is there haha so you best talk as if it should be too... 

(Or so they hope...  I wonder how many critical remarks could pop up about how awkward or improper those prayers may be relative to what Congress actually does on many days...  It's all supposed to be a study of Congress, after all!) 

    ... Nagging people more to actually pray, or to talk in terms of the Congressional prayer as some kind of discursive compass for other things they might or should pursue, only trails in down the road after such a bill.  Not that it's very subtle.
 

[Sabby]

Good old Wedge strategy.

[Callie Del Noire]

I've been crying out for philosophy and critical thinking classes since High School. It's just as important as Math and English.

Don't know about the philosphy but I can promise you EVERYONE needs critical thinking. I head desked a LOT as a senior petty officer who had junior airmen with no ability to think outside the obvious in a troubleshooting enviorment.. or even balance their checkbooks.

[vtboy]

Like I said earlier, my public school in England made us sing Christian hymns and prayers.  At the time, I don't think I even knew what I was doing, it was just an awesome break from schoolwork.  I remember one of my Muslim friends would go to another room and read some books instead of coming with the rest of us, and at the time, I had no idea why. 

Afterwards, we'd all play together during recess. 

Obviously this kind of legislation isn't desirable, but kids aren't as fragile about these things as we think.  Being asked to recite a prayer is very different from preaching a religion.

Clearly unconstitutional, but largely benign.

I am unable to conceive a distinction between the required reading of prayer to  students at the start of each and every school day and the preaching of religion. Isn't the required ritual an endorsement of belief in a deity and of the value of prayer? How is that not preaching? 

In fact, this strikes me as the most pernicious form of preaching, since the congregants seem not to have the right to get up and walk out. The law doesn't say anything about "asking" students to participate, and contains no exemption for those who might be offended by the ritual. Even if an objecting student might be excused, in an environment that can be as cliquish and ostracizing as the classroom, there may be oppressive consequences, whether real or only feared, for the student who would exercise the right.

I am old enough that my time in the early grades of public school preceded judicial prohibition of school prayer. But, my recollections of school prayer are different from yours.

I was raised in a non-Christian religious tradition, but lived in a predominantly
Christian community. At a tender age, I had already acquired an uncomfortable sense of being different from most of my classmates who, unlike me, attended church on Sunday, could not eat meat on Fridays, celebrated Christmas, dyed Easter eggs, made the sign of the cross at lunch, and frequently wore crucifixes (which I vaguely understood to be reminders of someone's hideous death). I can recall quite vividly how my feelings of religious otherness were aggravated at weekly assembly where I was required to sit through prayers and readings of scripture drawn largely from Christian traditions. 

People have plenty of opportunity to force their kids to pray -- on rising, at dinner, at bedtime, in church, in summer bible camp, and god knows where and when else. And, if that is not enough, they can send their kids to religiously affiliated schools. Let public schools provide a respite from the brainwashing and an asylum where differences in belief are entirely irrelevant to the business of education.   

[Sabby]

VT has said it much better then I have (though I've been treading extremely carefully). Thank you, +1 to that.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I just don’t understand what would take 15 minutes in terms of prayer.  That is a fourth of the time a standard Catholic mass goes for and that includes the procession of the priest walking down the aisle twice and communion.  So at a time when our education system is considering doing away with physical education and art so that there is more time allotted for other course work, I don’t think there is 15 minutes to spare.  So this seems a bit silly and detrimental to the students in that regard. 

I agree with Trieste that a prayer recited in school does not guarantee a child will become Christian or Catholic or even religious.  A large part of their influence still derives from peer influence and parental guidance.  Still, the prayer has a unifying effect on those children that are Christian and identify themselves as so.  Essentially by having the prayer mandated by the state, tied to the American government since this is the prayer before Congress and forcefully recited by an authority figure in the form of the teacher there is a reassurance to those students that they are correct in their religious belief and lifestyle.  Everyone in power from their parents to their teacher agrees with the teachings of Christ so to speak, therefore they must be correct and those that disagree are wrong.  Now do I think a simple prayer will make bullies of children, certainly not.  Still the ground work is laid for one group to feel ostracized and made to appear weaker by not being protected by authority, while another is supported and reaffirmed. 

Lastly I do want to say that there is humor that those so desiring religion in schools are fearful of a true religion class being taught.  One of the best experiences of my highschool curriculum, which was a Catholic highschool, was senior year when a teacher working on his PhD in philosophy came to teach a course called Philosophy of God.  He truly challenged people in what they believed and knew about God, no matter their faith.  He challenged Christians to uphold their beliefs even in contradiction to their American values and challenged non-Christians in regard to their own thoughts and values about God.  Was very well done and he brought in other teachers such as one of the nuns, a Jesuit priest, a psychologist and a biologist to also sit down with us.  There were also “round table” discussions where he would sponsor discussion between us and encourage debate.  This was meant to be a critical thinking view on God and honestly I do think children would benefit from a critical analysis of their own beliefs and values.  Yet, that is a no.  Reading the Bible and dogma is a yes.

[Oniya]

So at a time when our education system is considering doing away with physical education and art so that there is more time allotted for other course work, I don’t think there is 15 minutes to spare.

When I was in school, gym was every day, K-12.  The little Oni only has gym every other day.  We had the same schedules Monday through Friday.  They have an alternating schedule (the subjects covered on the standardized tests are daily - everything else is every other day.)  I could rant for hours about how hamstrung our teachers are already, as far as teaching our kids basic skills (simple math, spelling, rudimentary civics, etc.)  Fifteen minutes taken out of the day to recite a prayer - and probably without any analysis of it - that's fifteen minutes that is taken away from a teacher's real job.

Even if students are allowed to 'opt out' without consequence (official or otherwise), that's time that the teachers aren't able to teach.

[Moondazed]

Under US law, religious education (akin to Sunday school) is forbidden in public schools, except from a neutral, academic perspective.  So in other words, a Bible study class is permitted, "without violating constitutional limits, if the class would have to include critical rather than devotional readings and allow open inquiry into the history and content of biblical passages." (Source)

Frighteningly, here in Virginia they've found a loophole and have Bible study time run by local churches as part of school hours, with the participants needing a permission slip.  The church rents property on school grounds (the loophole) and the kids who go get to sing and earn candy for learning Bible verses, while the kids who don't go get to sit in study hall and not speak to each other.  I thought I was in the Twilight Zone when I heard about this!  I offered to go in and play educational games with the kids who didn't go, but nope, I'm not a licensed teacher so I can't do that, but some religious zealot can hand out candy for indoctrinating children.  I suspect my outrage is obvious. 

Yes, there are kids who were exposed to such things and weren't swayed, but I'm not willing to be apathetic toward the planting of the seeds of fear-based belief in my child's mind.

There is NO way that my child should be exposed to any prayer by a staff member in a public school.  My solution was to homeschool my son through middle school.  Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with a comparative religion class being a requirement before graduation from high school, but we all know that will never happen! :)

[chaoslord29]

Those are both excellent points. Whatever meditative benefits prayer might have as a function of religion, it's not an educational tool, and any attempt to use it as such in a publicly funded setting is a clear violation of The Establishment Clause or Equal Representation depending on which way you want to look at it.

Frankly, the privileged treatment of religious organizations is what really gets my goat in this country. I attended Episcopal parishes well into young adult hood, which provided community, friendship, progressive moral grounding (that is to say, not indoctrination along dogmatic lines) and had a lot of fun doing it. The church provided resources for not just people like me, but supported the community food banks, ran a soup kitchen, hosted AA and Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and provided training to lay-persons to become caregivers throughout the community. For all that, they enjoy tax exempt status and don't really tread on anyone's toes.

Then I look at the local evangelical mega church which directs it's funding towards trying to influence school board policy, buy local elections and picket planned parenthood clinics. I've tried attending a few of their services, where they have surround sound, big screen displays and a praise-music band of over the hill rock-a-billies, and their youth group center has it's own set of flat screens and x-boxes and for-proft snack bar. For all that, they enjoy exactly the same tax exempt status, and they're not even the worst offenders by a long shot.

Why don't the same rules that apply to most not-for-profit organizations apply to churches as a whole? When the director of a planned giving organization starts lining his own pockets and letting his inner circle enjoy gross company perks, he can be held accountable. When priests do the same thing, it's almost impossible to nail them on the same kind of fraud, simply because they're "Men of God" (whether or not they actually have any kind of theological background).

[Sabby]

There should be some kind of review process for that sort of thing. I mean, I'm an Anti-Theist, and even I recognize that Religious groups can and do perform good services around the world. If a group or organization within a major Religion is actually doing something charitable, then demonstrate that and earn your bloody tax exemption. The Mega Church, on the other hand, should pay up like any other business Hell, this needs to be a blanket process, not just for cutting the useless chaff out of Religious groups undeserved privileged status, but for charitable organizations of any kind.

[chaoslord29]

There should be some kind of review process for that sort of thing. I mean, I'm an Anti-Theist, and even I recognize that Religious groups can and do perform good services around the world. If a group or organization within a major Religion is actually doing something charitable, then demonstrate that and earn your bloody tax exemption. The Mega Church, on the other hand, should pay up like any other business Hell, this needs to be a blanket process, not just for cutting the useless chaff out of Religious groups undeserved privileged status, but for charitable organizations of any kind.

Most charitable organizations have to stay on their toes to avoid exactly that. I've got family in planned giving and while it's not like the IRS is exactly breathing down their throat, because very few people get into it with the same kind of business for business's sake that you find in the for-profit sector. People don't just look the other way at fraud or try to rationalize exploitation because the culture's not their for it. Not to say that their aren't abuses, just that they're a lot easier to fish out because most folks know what it looks like when a not-for-profit isn't on the level (as opposed to a business where no one can tell the difference).

Churches are the exception (and to a certain degree Universities with big sports programs), because they can just take people's money as part of their religion's established collections practices, and then keep it, because that's what they do. If there's an overarching organizational structure, like the Catholic Diocesan organization, then money is usually held as funds for the church as a whole and there's oversight to prevent abuses. If it's just the local mega church or some born again travelling preacher, there's nothing technically illegal about him keeping all that money in his wallet/bank account/mattress.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well the 'Crossover day' in Georgia came today..and without their version going up for a vote. So it won't be coming up for consideration this year.

[kylie]

Well the 'Crossover day' in Georgia came today..and without their version going up for a vote. So it won't be coming up for consideration this year.

       If I say 'hallelujah,' don't take it the wrong way!

[Jazra]

“If Congress can open with a prayer, and the state of Alabama Legislature can,” Steven Hurst explained in a burst of pure sophistry and undeniably deceptive logic, “I don’t see why schools can’t."

Probably no surprise, but I don't see any real chance that this law will pass the smell test if and when it works its way up the appellate chain to the Supreme Court. But what it may do is force a reexamination of the flawed logic that permits Christian invocations before Congress and state legislatures. In other words, Mr. Hurst may ultimately force the Supreme Court to address the mossy, decades old body of precedent that lets Bishops stand up in front of Congress and utter their invariably Christian prayers but somehow you never (or very, very rarely) see Islamic, Budhist, Hindu, or Wiccan representatives uttering their own prayers.

In other words, Mr. Hurst's bit of too clever by half sophistry will ideally (and should) backfire in his face.