It seems as if the Florida legislature has crossed a dangerous line. When Sen. Gary Siplin (D-Orlando) proposed S.B. 98, not only did he propose to impede on the religious expression of Florida public school students, but also upon the separation between church and state that I, along with many political advocacy organizations, have worked so passionately to safeguard. Even as a proud Virginian, I take this political stunt personally.
This violation of such a precious separation came in the form of a call to allow Florida school boards to permit student-led prayer. The passage of such a bill, thus, would procure many problems for Floridian students and school officials alike.
S.B. 98 would allow for Floridian schools, after being given permission from their respective school boards, to enable students to lead in prayer. The contents of the prayer would be contingent upon the results of a vote that each respective school would hold.
Am I the only person who is concerned about this potential?
The issuance of such a bill would enable students to endorse a prayer in the name of a single religion. This would inherently be at the cost of students who adhere to religious traditions of lesser popularity. In this regard, S.B. 98 would accomplish, first and foremost, the establishment of exclusionary religious practices in Florida's public school system.
Moreover, the content of S.B. 98 violates the first amendment of the Constitution. As the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in School Dist. Of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) and Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), mass school prayer in public schools, voluntary or mandatory, violates the Establishment Clause.
In other words, as Americans United for Separation of Church and State has written, it is not appropriate to vote for the contents of a school prayer as students might vote for officers in class government. In doing so, the administrations of such schools explicitly endorse, in all sense of the word, the creeds of a certain religion over another.
However, the confrontation of a bill with legal precedent does not truly combat the philosophy behind it.
This bill is simply an iteration of an uncomfortable political movement that encourages the marginalization of minority religions in the name of a majority.
In a state such as Florida, where 82% of citizens report adhering to any form of Christianity, it is obvious that the contents of a school prayer legalized under S.B. 98 would contain a Christian leaning. For all of the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, and other minority religious groups residing in Florida, such prayer is unfamiliar, but more importantly, potentially slighting. In fact, as many often forget when arguing for the perpetuation of the separation of church and state, many Christians, as well, would be opposed to allowing those of their own faith to publically endorse their religion over others under the permission of such a bill.
As a Reform Jew, I could not imagine being subjugated daily to Christian prayers led by my own peers, or feeling as if I need to leave the room in order to maintain my personal faith. Under the auspice of S.B. 98, many Floridian students would be unnecessarily placed in such a situation.
Simply put, it is imperative that politicians cease to endorse religion in the name of religion. Doing so casts the role of faith, which is an important element in the daily lives of many Americans, in a negative light.
Luckily, several wonderful political organizations such as the Interfaith Alliance, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty work to fight such legislation every day. However, it is important for Americans, as individuals, to relate to politicians that valuing their own respective faiths does not mean that it is necessary to do so at the cost of others. Such actions would upset the work that generations of Americans have executed to protect themselves from the governmental endorsement of religion.
This, I believe, would be quite shameful.
James Heffernan: So Religious Liberty Now Means the Freedom to Endanger Women's Health
Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch: Turning Enemies Into Friends in Israel and the Palestinian Territories
Stepping to the podium, and making a public proclamation of one's faith may be the exercise of one's First Amendment right, however, stepping to the podium and calling for a group prayer at a pubic venue is not. The latter is the exercise of religion and that particular aspect of First Amendment rights involves a balancing act between free exercise and the imposition of one's particular flavor of religion upon those who have attended a publicly sponsored function for a reason other than religious expression.
For most of my life, encompassing 5 dozen years, the majority of Americans have understood that for religious freedom to thrive, it is best kept in the personal sphere where there is ample time and opportunity for participation. Imposing religious expression into the public sphere necessarily leads to "government interference."
Let's be smart and keep our expressions of faith where they belong and our freedom of choice is protected: in the private sphere.
However, one must exercise common sense. It is not appropriate to disrupt a classroom, thus a student may not burst into the Lord's Prayer or a Bible verse during her World History class, or any other any more than another student may decide to sing "Climb Every Mountain" during algebra. Disruption of a classroom lesson is punishable behavior.
Public schools are tasked with specific responsibilities. Parents are tasked with the spiritual upbringing of their children. Students who share similar religious convictions are free to pray together, or read scripture together OUTSIDE of instructional time, which generally means before/after school. Indeed, many high schools have Christian clubs for that very purpose. Beyond that, any prayer during instructional time must be performed quietly.
See, prayer advocates don't want the free exercise of religion, they want to force THEIR religion on everybody else. They are no better than the Taliban.
Efforts to bifurcate Americans into "us" versus "them" are of questionable morality and certainly run counter to the intent of most of the framers of the Constitution. Their was intent to protect the minority from the majority in matters such as personal faith.
Americans enjoy rich spiritual lives, if they choose. Houses of worship of multiple denominations and traditions stand all over the U.S. This past holiday season I observed religious symbols adorning the front lawns of private citizens and churches throughout my community.
There is plenty of time in our private family lives and day for prayer. Laws and policies are nothing more than public theater, and you can be sure my religious convictions to not require theater for legitimacy.
And finally, these efforts to divide, to turn neighbor against neighbor, to create a large and more powerful "us" group to pit against the smaller, ever unpopular "them" have the potential to rip the country apart. Does anyone want this?
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and Stateâ€. Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association.
F & F
I refuse to live in jesustan.
------------------------------------
That is not what is being proposed.
And truth be told, the efforts are targeted against Christians. It's demonizing one group. My kids' schools have a lot of non-Christian religious education, songs, and activities in December. No one proposes to remove them.
Are you aware that the Constitution of the United States is a federal document, empowering the federal government to protect citizens' rights all across the country?
Maybe they forgot to teach you that in your "local" school, following "local community decisions"... or maybe you just missed class that day.
Whatever the cause of your unawareness, the fact remains that wherever local government abridges the federally-guaranteed constitutional rights of citizens, the federal constitution trumps and preempts all local law... including that of public school districts, as they are an instrument of government.
As for your well-practiced, well-worn (and totally disingenuous) persecution complex -- "efforts are targeted against Christians," you say -- the line "as you sow, so shall you reap" comes to mind.
That is, if Christians were not the ones who have been so busy trying to force everyone -- by abuse of law -- to adopt a set of beliefs and practices which many find odious and repugnant (not to mention silly), then the effort to repel such attempts at forced belief would not have anything to do with Christians. It is Christians abusing rights, so it is the abusive attacks of Christians which are being put down.
You have nothing to whine about.
As for the assertion that there are any groups larger than a fringe minority that are trying to mandate a national religion, this is blatantly false. There are groups who think religion and religious views solely should be banned from public expression and influence over the country's decisions, but that is about as close as it gets.
If ANY group attempted to get all students to pray to THEIR god, there'd be backlash as well. As well there should be, since the Constitution specifically prohibits it.