Details 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