|
Well it’s June,
the traditional time for graduations, weddings, and a “Brent Morrison” column on
school prayer.
No, no
Niemeyers have graduated from Oroville High School, where brothers Chris and
Jason were denied the podium for valedictory addresses in 1998 and 1999. Chris
had planned to thank God, while Jason was essentially found guilty of being a
Niemeyer.
That this is an
emotional issue is borne out by the response I received the last two Junes.
Along with support, each of those pieces brought one rather spirited email
exchange, the last of which inspired a self-imposed “two email” rule: I will
reply to a critical reader twice per column, then just take the blows. It was a
conclusion I was heading toward anyway, but I learned that a lot of folks drop
any pretense of civility at about the third email.
The usual
argument against prayer at school events is separation of church and state, a
phrase one will not find in the Constitution. One will instead find the
establishment clause of the First Amendment stating that “Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.”
Somehow this
simple, unambiguous language has come to mean something else. Establishing a
religion is now as simple as invoking God’s name in a public place; “free
exercise” is what we seek to prohibit if it occurs on public property.
This is no
small point. Limiting religious rights to private property effectively reserves
them for property owners. My guess is that few in the “separation” camp would
apply the same standard to other Constitutional freedoms, such as those of
speech and assembly. If such were the original intent, it was a well kept
secret until about the last five decades. Our founders plastered prayer and
religious references all over their documents and public proceedings. The
schools they attended, and left behind, almost universally included prayer and
Bible study. Their speeches invoked God, His will, and His desires for us.
Examining the
Constitution and the public actions of its authors makes one wonder how a
logical train of thought could arrive at the conclusion that the founders
intended a secular society, but if reason won’t take you where you want there’s
always an attorney. My bet is that far fewer lawyers wrote the Constitution
than are now reinterpreting it. Primary author James Madison, for instance, was
a planter, perhaps explaining the no-nonsense language that shines through
despite changes in idiom brought by the centuries.
Nonsense, it seems, is reserved to the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision
involving a Texas high school, the Court has upheld a lower court ruling
forbidding student-led prayer at football games. It did not address graduation
ceremonies, ala Oroville High, though unfortunately I do not see what the
distinction might be. I suppose that’s the problem with logic, which can cut
against the holder while leaving the target unscathed.
For example, “This is a complete and total victory for the freedom of religion
in this country,” said William Harrell, executive director of the Bizarro Planet
chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
OK, he claims he’s really from Texas. For you non-Superman fans, the Bizarro
Planet was a place where everything meant the opposite of what it said. What
other explanation can there be for statements like “While some will see it as
religion being prohibited in schools, students can voluntarily pray any time
they want”? The Texas policy allowed students to elect a representative to give
a “message or invocation” at their sole discretion, which sounds pretty
voluntary to me.
It has also been pointed out that attendance at high school football games is
not mandatory (even in Texas, apparently). That misses the central point,
however, as government is Constitutionally prohibited from establishing a
religion, mandatory or not.
Still, this is a foolish, wrong-headed decision that is contrary to the clear
intent of the First Amendment, a statement I wish to make while I can. If the
Supreme Court ever applies this same reasoning to the freedoms of press and
speech, the chance will have passed.
© 1997 – 2002 Brent Morrison
|
