Praying in St. John'sDetails can be a real pain in the butt, just like me. But nonetheless, they are there & will haunt us if we don’t pay attention to the lessons they teach us. I was paying attention to them while wondering through the local news stories. I couldn’t help but notice that there has been some attention paid to a St. Johns County coach under fire for holding prayers after football games. Yes, there is a question of separation here. Yes, we have had input in the manner of letters to the editor in the Times Union concerning this subject. Curiously enough, I’ve noticed that all of the letters printed so far have been in favor of holding prayers after the game. I must say that I find it statistically remarkable considering the population in the area. Not one opposing view has been published. Imagine that. As with any subject, a fair & balanced view should be given. Now I know that many of you are going to say, “Uncle Rich, you can’t possibly be against saying a prayer before an athletic event, can you?” No, not really. I wouldn’t do it myself, but I recognize that some either need or want to. But Uncle Rich, this is a great American tradition. Surely, you can’t be against a great American tradition, can you? As always, the possibility exists. Besides, I think that some traditions are highly over rated. But Uncle Rich, you can’t be against the free practice of religion in the form of free speech as the Constitution says, can you? Under certain circumstances, as the law specifies, you bet your bippy I can. Also, I have to think that there are more than a few of you who have wondered why I haven’t, “given it a rest,” by not commenting on this situation. Very simple. I wanted to see what the community reaction would be. Unfortunately, I only have the letters to the editor by which to judge. Since the opinions run 100% in favor of prayers, I’m compelled (by the practice of producing a FAB view) to address those opinions. I’ve broken the reactions down to three basic arguments. The first is the claim of religious intolerance. That’s not new or surprising. The second is a general attitude expressed many times before. That if one doesn’t wish to be included in the group prayer for whatever reason, they can, “just walk off the field.” In effect, just remove yourself from the group activity if you don’t like it. The third is that since the wishes of the majority are in favor of saying a prayer, it must be just. It must be right. It must be correct. It must be legal & therefore must be adhered to. One letter writer even quoted George Washington on the subject of free speech to bolster his argument. And it’s hard to argue against it. But it is not impossible, by any means. Now right here, I must say that I am not commenting on the character or capabilities of the coach in question. I am, however, saying that in my opinion in every case mentioned above, the reasoning in each case is very wrong. Allow me to explain. First, in this circumstance, being a public school activity, offering prayers to a god or gods is a violation of the First Amendment, not religious intolerance. Prayers can be said at any time before or after a game, at home or in a separate setting away from the public venue, thereby offering any person or group the opportunity to exercise their religious rituals if they feel the need. So no one is prohibited, & I emphasized that, from saying prayers. In reference to the freedom of speech, quoting George Washington, it is a well documented, well established fact that the freedom of speech is not absolute. It does have limits whether we agree or not. Another reason for restricting prayers, as in this case, is the fact that since it is a group activity, no child should be subjected to the indignity of being excluded, classified as second class because they might be of a different religion or no religion. This also applies to adults. Those who would offer the solution of “just walking off the field,” apparently have never considered the alternative of having someone tell them the same thing. Think, if you can, of this scenario. The majority says to you, “If you want to offer your little prayers, go right ahead. But this is not the time. This is not the place. But you just go ahead & walk off the field, say your prayers, separate from the group that you belong to & then you can come back, in front of all the spectators & start to play. Don’t worry, we’ll take the time out & wait for you because you are just so special.” That’s a heck of a lesson in democracy & tolerance to teach our children, don’t you think? If that’s the best we can come up with, we’re in much more trouble than even I thought. The wishes of the majority. Or, you can call it call it the mob mentality. Or, you can call it catering to the unwashed, unlettered masses. Whatever you call it, don’t call it the definitive criteria by which decisions should be made. In case no one has ever thought about it, the majority is not always right. The wishes of the majority can’t always be trusted to decide what is right for all, what is just for all or what is legal. I’ve said it before & have given examples. I don’t trust the majority. They are too prone to failure because they are only human. If that sounds callous or jaded, it’s only because history has shown it to be a fact. Consider these: at one time, the majority held the opinion that the earth was the center of the universe & everything revolved around it. Therefore, the earth must be special. The majority was proven wrong. At one time, the majority, a majority of experts nonetheless, thought that bloodletting was a cure for various ailments. The majority was proven to be wrong. At one time, the majority felt that women and blacks lacked the capacity to contribute their opinions in the form of voting for the people who would represent them in the legislature. The majority was proven wrong. Not to put too fine a point on it, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the majority decided to let a thief go free, & instead have another man crucified in a particularly horrible manner, as was the fashion of the times. Were they correct in their assessment also, as the majority? As long as someone quoted Washington on free speech, so I would quote him on the subject of religion in America. In a document going back to the 1790’s, dealing with pirates off Tripoli, in the Mediterranean, Washington sent a diplomat, Joel Barlow to deal with pirates. Washington said, in his document, “as the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,” there should be no cause for conflict over differences of “religious opinions,” between countries. Yes, while this nation was founded by people of the Christian religion, we are not a Christian nation. The implication being that Christianity should not hold dominance, nor should it be privileged. Quoting can be a double edged sword, obviously. So I would have to ask the majority to do something they might not have considered before. Look upon this case in a manner that would adhere to the law. Look upon it & decide what is best for the future for our children & their children & things that we might not be able to ponder at this time. That’s what our founding fathers did in the manner of writing the Constitution & Bill of Rights. Use logic, critical, reasoned thinking, not religious zealotry, passion, mindless tradition or currently fashionable, politically correct thought processes. I know that some will consider these as just annoying details. But they are details that are very important. Yeah, JATFUR. Doubt is the first step towards knowledge. Acquiring knowledge is the next step to a higher intellect. RichK Related: RichK's blog | login or register to post comments | printer friendly version | Tags: School Prayer
Submitted by ClayCountyCurmudgeon on Tue, 10/09/2007 - 9:20am.
RichK - Somehow I thought when nobody replied to your diatribe about the 'secret society,' (like the Dems don't have their own little fraternity) that you would go for the hot button. I won't spend alot of time - but in reality and in my OPINION - the Supreme Court has mistaken the principles of "freedom of religion" and freedom from religion. No matter how you characterize a kid walking away if they don't want to participate in the post or pre-game prayer, they can walk away - that is our freedom and one most other countries don't share. Walk away in some countries and you end up with a bullet. Our answer when I was a kid on a basketball team - we formed a prayer group after the game at center court. Most of the time some of the opposing team members joined as well. The coaches were invited and were always the last to join, and they did not add to the prayer with words. Did the kids who didn't join feel ostracized? Probably no more than those of us who did not join the after game drinking binges felt ostracized. There will always be a fine line on this issue. If there was ever evidence that kids were coerced into joining the prayer by a school official (coach), then it is absolutely wrong. If they join in on their own accord when invited by a teammate - then that is great!
Submitted by MeMaw on Tue, 10/09/2007 - 9:24am.
Rich: In simple terms, it comes down to respect. If we're taught as children to respect each other; other's beliefs, nationality, religious views, etc. there should be no problem. If a person chooses not to pray when their peers are doing so, and walk away, it's their choice; the same with those who stand together and pray. Neither choice is against the law, so what's the big deal? Submitted by RichK on Tue, 10/09/2007 - 9:33am.
FoxRidge, Yes I agree. All Americans are free to pray or not to pray. What a country, what a concept. Ya got to love it. However, when the act is in violation of the law, or puts a person, especially a child, in the situation of exclusion, there's the problem. With the freedoms we have, no one should be put in that position. As I stated, the situation should be reversed a couple times so that every one would know what it feels like. I came across a story, last year, I think, of a woman whose family got transferred to Hawaii. I forget the reason. Her son was in high school, played football & made the transition fairly easily. He got on the local high school football team & the whole family went to the first game he played on a Friday night. Now this woman & her family were Christian, I don't remember the denomination. As was the practise back home in the 48, they had a prayer before the game. But, as she told the story, it never occured to her that the dominant religion in the area was Bhuddist. So naturally, she was shocked & embarassed when she couldn't join in. She said that she had never in her life felt so alone, excluded & yes, angry. But after thinking @ it, she came to realise how other people of other beliefs, or no beliefs, felt when put in the same position. It gave her a better perspective on public prayer when it violated peoples rights &/or the law. It gave her a better perspective on the philosophy she had used in the past. Namely, if you don't like it you can just not pray or walk away. In other words, you can show your self to be different just because you are in the minority. She went on to say that she had a much different attitude when it came to public prayer. I have to add, without sarcasm, that she showed a very Christian attitude. Treat others the way you would have them treat you, among other things. I never saw the bumper sticker you mentioned, but I like it. Very appropriate. JATFUR. RichK
Submitted by Marsha on Tue, 10/09/2007 - 9:38am.
RichK I somehow get the feeling that you will not be happy until all expression of religion is imprisioned inside the four walls of a Church and in the privacy of ones own home so I am not getting into this one again, or ever again for that matter. For the record though, you made the assumption that letters opposed to the situation were withheld from print in order to use the Fair and Balanced sword. Unless you've been there and have seen the mail I suggest that perhaps there were no letters in opposition received in time to publish if at all. Submitted by RichK on Tue, 10/09/2007 - 10:52am.
MeMaw, As to the matter of choice & making a big deal, I covered those with the three points in my blog & I see no need to repeat. But I will give you a 'frinstance. Let's say that on a typical Friday night football game, you have a private Christian school playing a public school team in the public school stadium. As often happens, the Christian team will gather on the sideline to say a prayer before before kickoff. Now if somebody would raise an objection to that, I would be one of the first to say that they were wrong. Why? Each team is a separate entity in & of itself. The people in the stands are also. No exclusion exists. CCC, Actually, someone did reply. and I was not the first to go for the "hot button" issue. The story itself was first. The letters to the editor were second. I came in third. Oh well. As far as the Supreme Ct. goes, & this may sound strange, but I am in complete advocacy for both, freedom OF religion & freedom FROM religion, just as many others before me have been & continue to be. But that's another topic. Now here is a shocker for all of you. You all know that I am an agnostic & you know my feelings on the subject. I also belong to a softball team. Before each game, one of the guys leads us in a team prayer invoking the name of Jesus. I hope no one gets the vapors out there or starts to swoon. I participate, silently of course, but I do not separate myself from the team. My choice. You might think that is hypocritical of me, but it's not. I consider it more a matter of priority, choice & character. I did not use or imply coersion & I agree with you on that 100% Apparently, so did SCOTUS. The original issue of prayers in public school is slowly (too slowly for my liking) being extended to athletic events & graduations. I am also realistic enough to know that there will probably be exceptions. Marsha, "Imprisoned," is your word of choice, not mine. But you have the right to use it. In one way, you are right. I have stated it before & I'll state it again. In my opinion, prayer belongs in the heart, the mind, the home, the religious activity & the place of worship. If I missed one, mea culpa, my bad. I don't see any need for it anywhere else. If any of those rights were infringed, once again, I would be among the first to object. But one must also recognise the rights of others to be free from religion as the law allows. You are correct @ my assumption. You are right, I wasn't there & did not see the mail. I based my assumption & implication on two things. Statistical probabilities based upon the population of readership & the fact that I know for a fact that there was at least one letter to the editor with an opposing view. That letter was submitted on the same day the story appeared in the paper. RichK
Submitted by winn1955 on Tue, 10/09/2007 - 2:01pm.
Ok RK I wasn’t going to bite on this topic, until I got too paragraph nine of your blog. You state, “Another reason for restricting prayers, as in this case, is the fact that since it is a group activity, no child should be subjected to the indignity of being excluded, classified as second class because they might be of a different religion or no religion.” I submit to you that there is no exclusion being committed. To exclude someone by the definition or the word is as follows;. ex·clude 1. To prevent from entering; keep out; bar: 2. to prevent from being included, considered, or accepted; reject: I submit too you that it is a matter of choice, and by the definition of the word; choice, 1. the act of choosing; selection. 2. The power, right, or liberty to choose; option. I also submit to you that anyone that makes a choice to walk off of the field, because they choose not too pray has no reason too feel indignant. Again by the definition of the word, in·dig·na·tion Anger aroused by something unjust, mean, or unworthy. If that person feels anger, then it is their heart they need to look into as to why they feel as they do. You exclude someone from the team at try outs when they can’t catch the football. And that my man is just a life lesson that needs to be learned by our children today. Life is full of exclusions that are beyond your control, but choice is yours to hold. If you made the choice, and you feell it is right for you; than there is no reason to feel indignant. It takes an unsatisfied person to make things satisfactory: winn1955 Submitted by RichK on Tue, 10/09/2007 - 3:38pm.
Winn, You raise a very good point & I accept it, of course. I don't know what dictionary you used, but I find nothing in the definition to which I can argue. I will also admit that I worded my reasoning in an inadequate manner, which is also obvious. Allow me to back pedal to correct. While the definition you provide is correct, I should have phrased it as when a person, especially a child, feels as though they are being excluded, ignored, considered as second class or perhaps even as irrelevent to the point of their background being not important enough to be considered in respect to the majority view. this, of course does not confirm to the definition. But it is, nonetheless, a very real aspect of human nature, something we see all too often. While respect is usually demanded by the majority, in this particular case, that of the religious views of the majority, they, the majority, out of hand refuse to consider respecting the view and rights of the minority. I hope that my poor phrasing did not detract from my overall message. That being that any person, especially a child, should not have to be put in a position to have to choose to walk away, show themselves to be different in the first place. That is not indignation. That is de facto exclusion by attitude & the will of the majority. That is not what this country is about. It is supposed to be @ inclusion & respect, not deference or resignation. The whole situation could be prevented by adherence to the law, regarding the First Amendment, and plain, simple, common courtesy. No one, not even I, say that people should be prohibited from excersising their right to pray. I would ask you to read my section @ the woman who moved to Hawaii. She actually walked in the other persons moccasins & saw the view from the other side. Those who disagree & take the stand that if some one doesn't like prayers should just walk away, separate themselves from the group activity, would be the very first to rise in righteous & very vocal indignation if the same suggestion was offered to them. And in my very best Lt. Columbo impersonation, I would add, "Just one more thing." I love it when you guys force me to take the extra step & think just a little bit harder. Overall, it makes me a better person. JATFUR. RichK
Submitted by RichK on Tue, 10/09/2007 - 3:47pm.
CCC, I was just reading over some of the comments, especially yours, & realised that something went over my head, unnoticed. First, it was not a diatribe. All I did was to comment on an existing story I came across in the news. Second, what "little fraternity," do the Dems have? I have to admit, I'm in the dark on that one. Can you offer a bit of insight? Is it as super secret as the CNP? I'd like to know. RichK Submitted by RichK on Wed, 10/10/2007 - 7:28am.
I would like to offer my thanks to Times Union Sports sports columnist, Sam Borden for his eloquent column on this topic in today's (Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2007) edition in the sports section. His, the first opposing view I have found in the Times Union, was at one stroke, simple, well thought out & fair. While his opinion & mine are in complete agreement, his was an excellent example of why he is a paid professional & I am not. His opinion echoed the opinion of many of us on this topic who have rarely been heard in a public venue. Once again, thank you Sam. RichK Submitted by winn1955 on Wed, 10/10/2007 - 11:32am.
RK I’m not going too get into the whole prayer thing with you, I will stay on the topic of as you state your overall message. (Oh! By the way the dictionary I use is the one from refdesk.com the name of the dictionary is Farlex, RK check out refdesk.com it’s amazing how much ref. material they offer on the site.) Ok back on topic."That being that any person, especially a child, should not have to be put in a position to have to choose to walk away, show themselves to be different in the first place". RK I don’t know if you have noticed or not; but children are different, Just as adults are. If a child’s friends are offering him the opportunity to do some drugs; and his core belief is that it is wrong , and he walks away, has he been excluded from the activity? No it was his choice to do so, based on his core belief. That child should be able to walk away head held high knowing that they stood for what they believed in, if you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything, same scenario for the prayer thing. As far as exclusion goes it’s a fact of life that people get excluded from many aspects in life, and children need to learn that. Unfortunately our schools don’t teach that lesson anymore. Everyone seems too focused on being politically correct. We can’t have team captains choosing sides for the game anymore because; they may pick Sally or Billy last and they would feel bad. You can’t play Dodge Ball, because someone will be excluded from the game if they get hit. "That is not what this country is about. It is supposed to be @ inclusion & respect, not deference or resignation". This country is very diverse and that diversity comes from the very different parts of our society. The key to being different is acceptance. And in my opinion respect is earned, and not given. Submitted by RichK on Wed, 10/10/2007 - 1:13pm.
Winn, Thanks for the tip @ refdesk. I'll check it out & if it's as good as you say, I'll put it on my references favorite list. Always love to have more than 5 sources. I use Webster's Collegiate myself but have other sources when I need more than just a definition. I've been reading through our replies & saw that it seems that we are hitting the problem from different angles. As I said, I can't argue with your definitions & accept you examples as valid. At this point, I should say that if you haven't as yet read the column on this topic by Sam Borden in today's TU, I would recommend it highly. As I said above, he did a much better job of describing the situation than I did. Exclusion. In my opinion, this goes a bit farther than the dictionary version or just having a person, in this case, a child, "feeling excluded." Your examples of children are right. Your assessment that children being different is right. But it goes much deeper than that. We're not talking @ drugs, clothing styles or athletic ability. As CCC would say,we're talking @ a hot button issue. A very hot button indeed. In the overwhelming amount of cases, children get their religious training from their parents. They are also taught that they must believe & obey their parents. So, at a young age, they are inculcated with the religion of their parents & believe it to be right. Regardless of the religion, one thing most have in common is superiority and validation over all others. That's what the the child brings to the playing field. Now add to the mix is the fact that Christians hold a numerical advantage in this country which is why we have predominately Christian prayers. So when, before or after a game, Christian prayers are said, under authority, what is a child to think when the group, in effect, makes another god valid, thereby invalidating other gods, his god? Now add this to the mixture. Somewhere along the line, a child finds out that religion, all religions, are based on nothing but belief. If it were a fact, he wouldn't have any further reason to believe. To add a little more fuel to the fire, cases like this have been & are currently coming under review for First Amendment violations. Not as a prohibition, but as a restriction in a public venue, especially under authority. The courts can't take away any persons right to pray pretty much any time, any place. But as with the freedom of speech, it is not absolute So it is, indeed, a very sticky wicket & hot button issue to boot. Looking forward to more exchange. Keep me on my toes. JATFUR. RichK
Submitted by winn1955 on Thu, 10/11/2007 - 3:28pm.
God vs. Religion Rk I did go out and buy the paper yesterday so I could read Borden’s Article. What I got out of it was that Public School was no place to teach, or preach religion. Are you sitting down Rk? If you aren’t, grab some coffee and hold on too your chair with your free hand. RK I couldn’t agree more. Public school is not the place too teach, or preach religion. Here is were we will differ on our opinion. Saying a non denominational prayer to God is not preaching, or teaching religion. Religion is the way a denomination teaches their congregation how to worship their God. You know; putting a rug on the floor and praying to the east, or baptizing a baby with Holly Water, or dunking your head under the water for a baptism, or having more than one wife, each one of those is a particular religion. And they have their own opinion about God.
God can be anyone, or anything you believe him, her to be. God can be an Idol, a divine person, or just your higher power, as they teach in A.A. . If you believe that the Rock that you found and placed on your mantel is all powerful, that would be your God. GOD IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE HIM TO BE, God is not a religion. If the coach ends his prayer with Jesus Christ our savior, that would be teaching religion, but if he ends it with God I ask that you bless our team, what is wrong with that? Every child in that group in his own mind is asking his God to bless our team. They know who their God is, their parents taught them, as they should have, if it is that family’s belief system what is wrong with it? Along with that; it is the parent’s job to teach their child tolerance of others beliefs. Instead of going after prayer in the schools we should be teaching children how,and why we should tolerate others that are different. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it . Did that put you back on your toes Rk?
It takes an unsatisfied person to make things satisfactory: winn1955 Submitted by RichK on Thu, 10/11/2007 - 5:40pm.
Winn, I told you guys that I love it when you force me to take that extra step & think a little harder. I'm not too shocked. A person of your obvious wisdom should be taken seriously. All platitudes aside..... As you know, I don't subscribe to the PC philosophy. Courtesy, Yes. I understand your differentiating a god with religion, organized or other, & consider it a very valid point. When it comes to the idea of a god or religion in the public sphere, to me, there's not much difference. I didn't make the conditions, I just complain about them. And then, I just take it one step further & kick it up a notch. Every one of the over 4,200 recognised religions on the planet have things in common. They all rely on believe & belief alone. They all believe in a power higher than themselves by whatever name or idea one cares to give. Many of them have a spoken history to claim validity. Some have books they consider sacred. Some have numerical superiority over others in their respective lands. Another thing they all have in comon is the fact that by definition, religion, all religion, is an element of superstition. I didn't say it. The dictionary does. Some may not like to hear that but I didn't make the rules. In my opinion, the Senate of the United States, the House of Representatives or even a local public high school athletic team has no need or business to defer to either tradition or the majority opinion when it comes to a god or religion. It is not the function of the business of government nor a local sports team to coerce, adhere to tradition or allow others to be put in the position of experiencing exclusion or secondary status on the basis of their wanting to practise an element of superstition. If any person can provide evidence of the benefits of prayers, whether in government or sports, it would be the very first time. If any person can justify the benefit of making the religion of other people seem to be inferior by way of prayer to the god of the majority, voluntary or otherwise, I'd like to hear it. If one has not learned how to be a good player, do the best he or she can before taking the playing field, prayer will not help. If one has not practised the discipline & made the effort to be the best player they can be before taking the field, prayer will not help. If a player has not learned to respect the efforts and integrity of either themselves or the other team before taking the field, prayer will not help. If one has not learned of the benefits of fair play, honor, sportsmanship & integrity before taking the playing field, prayer will not help. Whether you're talking about the concept of a god or organized religion, it tends to boil down to the same thing, at least in a general sense. If you are talking @ a private religious school, woe be to the person who objects to their practising their faith on the field. I've covered that in a previous reply. Ultimately, we'll see what the courts have to say, the courts after them & the courts after them. JATFUR. RichK Submitted by winn1955 on Thu, 10/11/2007 - 9:06pm.
Ok RK, or should I call you Richard Kusni*#*%k It takes an unsatisfied person to make things satisfactory:winn1955 Submitted by RichK on Fri, 10/12/2007 - 7:09am.
Winn, the thread is a never ending circle. It's been debated long before you or I evtered the scene & will, in all probability, continue. As long as the debate continues to be civilised, no problemo. Who knows? Maybe someday some one might even come up with the definitive answer. Hope they at least give us partial credit. Catch you on the flip side. JATFUR RichK People are talking about ...Here are the recent blog postings with the most comments. |
Who's onlineRecent comments |
I read your reply and my first reaction was to cut and past it to my word processor, as always. Reread it, high light the points to be made, and continue our debate. And then I had a V8 moment. This thread would never end; you and I could continue these logomachies for a long, long time and end up with the same point of view. So; with that being said and this has been said many times on this blog site. We should bow out and respectfully agree to disagree. There is one curious aspect to this blog, and that is everyone else figured that out before we did. Anyway I like the challenge of a good debate. I look forward to a new war of wit, and words again soon.
Rich,
All Americans are free to pray in public. In fact, unless they are blocking traffic, they can pray in a group. I also want you to remember that you are free to not pray in public. If you choose not to participate, like some football players, hey, whatever floats your boat.
Don't forget the wisdom of that classic bumper sticker...."AS LONG AS THERE ARE EXAMS, THERE WILL BE PRAYER IN SCHOOLS."