Congress, Constitutional Law, Free Speech, Politics, Religion

Alabama Legislator Moves To Make Prayer Mandatory In Public Schools

praying_hands[1]hurst_sIt appears that Alabama legislators want to trigger yet another legal challenge to the ban on prayer in public schools. A new piece of legislation introduced by Rep. Steve Hurst, R-Munford would require teachers to read a prayer every day. However, this bill has an interesting twist: it would have the teachers pick a prayer given in Congress. The point is obvious that if such prayers are permissible in one government setting, it must be permissible in this public setting. That assumption is misplaced and the timing for the bill may be as ill-conceived as its constitutional interpretation. There is a pending case dealing with legislative prayer before the Court and this controversy will only remind justices that the legislative prayer cases may collide with school prayer cases unless it draws a clear line in the constitutional sand. This however is an improvement for Hurst who has moved on to prayer from his prior interest in castration.

Hurst insists that “If Congress can open with a prayer, and the state of Alabama Legislature can, I don’t see why schools can’t.”

Here is the language of HB 318:

SYNOPSIS: This bill provides for a period of time in the public schools for studying the formal procedures of the United States Congress including the verbatim reading of a congressional opening prayer.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT

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

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:
Section 1. At the commencement of the first class of each day in all grades in all public schools, the teacher in charge of the room in which such class is held shall, for a period of time not exceeding 15 minutes, instruct the class in the formal procedures followed by the United States Congress. The study shall include, but not be limited to, a reading verbatim of one of the opening prayers given by the House or Senate Chaplain or a guest member of the clergy at the beginning of a meeting of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

Section 2. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.

The bill would raise a longstanding conflict in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, which has tried to allow certain prayers like at the start of Congress while drawing the line at schools. The issue is now before the Supreme Court in Town of Greece v. Galloway. Since 1999, the town has started its town council meetings with a prayer led local clergy or local residents. The case will return the Court to the area some thirty years after its ruling in Marsh v. Chambers when it held that the Nebraska legislature could begin its legislative sessions with prayers. This is an area however where the Court has avoided clear lines and left significant confusion in the wake of the decision. But the Court has never settled when legislative prayers go too far and cross the line separating church and state. Since 1999, the town of Greece, New York, which is outside Rochester, has started its town council meetings with a prayer led by members of the local clergy or local residents. In the case of the Town of Greece, all of the prayer leaders happen to have been Christians. It was challenged in 2007 by Jewish resident Susan Galloway and atheist Linda Stephens. One such example of the prayer involved in pastor proclaiming “the freedom that comes from knowing your son, Jesus.” A lower court found the prayer violated the first amendment as an endorsement of Christianity.

That in turn raises the Alabama proposal. The prayers before Congress are given by various demoninations, though teachers would be allowed to choose (which could produce an as applied problem). However, there is a problem with the audience which is viewed as a captive audience in past cases. In 1962, the Court considered a relatively mild prayer approved by the New York Board of Regents: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.” It ruled that such prayers violated the establishment clause. In 1963, it ruled in Abington School District v. Schempp that school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States is unconstitutional. Both rulings had overwhelming majorities.

Notably, these decisions did not ban prayer from schools since children could still individually pray. Moreover, it does not keep religion out of legitimate educational programs. In Abington School District, Justice Tom Clark stressed “Nothing that we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistent with the First Amendment.” He added:

“The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church, and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality.”

That presents an interesting potential test case that falls between school prayers cases and legislative prayer cases — a distinction long opposed by secularists who want the government out of religious speech and practices. Marsh allows legislative prayers to be sure but not efforts to proselytize or favor or denounce a religion. However, the Court is likely to view this as yet another effort to circumvent its school prayer cases. The odds are heavily against Alabama which would mean that it will spend considerable money on the inevitable challenge to the law — only to likely lose in the federal courts.

Source: Anniston Star

111 thoughts on “Alabama Legislator Moves To Make Prayer Mandatory In Public Schools”

  1. “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” (Traveling Mercies by Anne Lamott; on page 22 of Bird by Bird; she attributes this quote to “my priest friend Tom”)

  3. “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” — Blaise Pascal

    Hence another meditation in verse upon the subject of …

    Boobie Theology
    (from Fernando Po, U.S.A., America’s post-literate retreat to Plato’s Cave)

    The Christians, Jews, and Muslims found
    A way to test their wits
    These Boobies hung themselves on poles
    Or threw themselves in pits
    To slash and stab and stone themselves
    In atavistic fits

    Domestic quarrels such as these
    Have seldom led to peace
    But only to more arguments
    Which somehow never cease
    Until divorce brings happiness
    Or martyrdom’s release

    The concept of the single “GAWD”
    Leaves little more to mock
    Yet charlatans consider it
    Their tawdry trade and stock:
    No worse idea ever crawled
    From underneath a rock

    The dabbler in theology
    Ties thinking up in knots
    And ends up “proving” theories with
    Those Rorschach ink-stain blots
    A schizophrenic exercise
    In complicating plots

    Mistaking recrudescence for
    “Awakening” sublime
    The Boobie brain has failed so let’s
    Just stumble back in time
    And live two thousand years ago
    In darkness, plague, and grime

    The priests and kings would love it, though.
    They always have and will.
    If science hadn’t come along,
    We’d live in darkness still
    Enslaved to kings and priests intent
    On feeding us their swill

    The frightened ones need pity but
    That doesn’t make them king
    With autocratic power to
    Dictate the tune we sing
    The choir has many voices and
    Each one deserves to ring

    Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright © 2014

  4. DavidM
    I pray you look at Article 11 of the 1793 Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams and passed unanimously by the Senate where several other signers of both the DOI and Constitution sat. The Article states quite clearly that the United States in no way is founded on the Christian religion. These were educated English citizens who knew full well the damage done to their country and other European countries by allowing religion to pervade politics. And I have no more patience or tolerance for those who would seek to damage this democracy any further than has already been done by the scourge of religion.

    1. Rcampbell wrote: “I pray you look at Article 11 of the 1793 Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams and passed unanimously by the Senate where several other signers of both the DOI and Constitution sat. The Article states quite clearly that the United States in no way is founded on the Christian religion. These were educated English citizens who knew full well the damage done to their country and other European countries by allowing religion to pervade politics. And I have no more patience or tolerance for those who would seek to damage this democracy any further than has already been done by the scourge of religion.”

      The context of the Treaty of Tripoli to which you refer concerned the problem with Muslim pirates off the North coast of Africa. Ironically, this piracy problem and Muslim problem continues to this day. The treaty was communicating that we are not in any sense a Christian Republic at enmity with Islam because of differing religious opinions. Rather, we are a nation which embraces religious liberty and religious pluralism. Our laws do not force anyone to become Christian, nor does it force all laws to conform with the laws and teachings of the Christian Bible. In terms of the laws of our nation, we are as friendly toward Islam as we are toward Christianity. Such does not mean that our nation is a nation founded upon secular humanism.

      Following is the actual translation of the Treaty to which you refer:

      “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

      This treaty was broken by the Muslims within a few years because they wanted more money, and when a new treaty was established in 1805, it did not contain this phrase to which you refer. Many scholars argue that the Arabic version never contained this language and how Barlow came up with this Article 11 translation has been a mystery.

      Because you mention the significance of John Adams signing this treaty, perhaps you should pay attention to other quotes from this founding father which clearly contradict your interpretation of his attitude toward religion.

      John Adams said in a speech to our military: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

      Adams also said, “Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.”

      In the diary of John Adams we can read the following entry, “Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God … What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”

      In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, Adams wrote: “”The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence. Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.”

      Your preference for our nation being free from religion was not the preference of our founding fathers. They desired a nation that had freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion.

  5. Just another Republican politician taking it upon himself to issue an animist

    Scapegoat Job Application

    Universal scapegoat wanted
    Applicant(s) apply inside
    No experience required
    Simply pander to our pride

    In our image we will make you
    Nothing you need do or say
    Ambiguity desired
    What you’ve spoken, we will say

    Unpredictable is better
    Less you do, the more we gain
    That way, anything that happens
    Afterwards we’ll just explain

    In your mouth some words inserted
    By our ministers and priests
    Gild the lining of their pockets
    From our meager meals their feasts

    From each one what he produces
    To the church its lustful needs
    You must only never quibble
    With the contents of our screeds

    You must form the perfect mirror
    Simply stand there and reflect
    Into you we’ll pour our darkness
    This, of course, you can’t reject

    We’ll write down what you’ve commanded
    Do not trouble with the “what?”
    Someone else will figure that out
    You just keep your own mouth shut

    Do not feel the least embarrassed
    At the empty praise you get
    Even though you’ve never earned it
    Just pretend and soon forget

    Burnt upon your sacred altar
    Though you’re dead, you’re still not stiff
    On your back our sins we’ll pile up
    Then we’ll shove you off a cliff

    What we do defines our “essence”
    Nothing “is” or ever “was”
    Big spooks in the sky, and little,
    Don’t exist; but “doing” does

    So our learning curve has no slope
    So our E.E.G.-line’s flat
    None can “damn” and none can “bless” us
    Only we can manage that

    So, we’ve got a deal then, don’t we?
    Such an offer, who’d refuse?
    Nothing paid for nothing offered
    That’s what makes you great to use

    Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright 2008

  7. rafflaw
    “I do have a question though. When did the Declaration of Independence take precedent over the Constitution?”
    … Perhaps when they began to label everything, ‘In God We Trust’?

  8. There was only one time in public school when I remembered something resembling school prayer. It was around 1976 and our I remember my teacher telling us before we ate our lunches to have a moment of silence. There was something said by her about she couldn’t tell us that we had to pray but we could if wanted to. She would then bow her head and put her hands into the praying clasp and the silent moment would begin. The was a little different for us because we never had this type of thing before (either prayer or silence). But we just went along with it.

    She was a very nice woman and one of my favorite teachers. I believe she felt this was the right thing to do in an honest way. She was probably born around 1915 so her times might have been different than what was going on later.

    I am sure the school principal knew about this and just let it happen.

    Being in a semi-rural area at that time the old ways were still around but it was changing then. The school I went to then is still around but I imagine it is a very different environment than back then, in more ways than one. All things considered I am very glad I went to grade school when I did.

  9. nick spinelli
    Ideologues to the right of me, ideologues to the left of me. Can’t we all just get along?
    ======================================================

    nick “rodney king” spinelli

    i went to school in alabama back when the days were started with prayer. in no way shape form or fashion was it voluntary.

  11. Good for Alabama, our children need some good instruction that will serve them well in their lives.

  12. We are getting along nick. The discussion is a reasonable one, no matter which side of the discussion you are on. I do have a question though. When did the Declaration of Independence take precedent over the Constitution?

  13. Ideologues to the right of me, ideologues to the left of me. Can’t we all just get along?

  14. @Mike Appleton,

    In his famous essay, “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell extended and amplified your points about what religious reactionaries say with words like “religion” versus what they really mean by them.

    “Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. [Such consciously insincere statements] are almost always made with intent to deceive.”

    As you correctly note, religious reactionaries in the United States will speak of defending “religion,” which the general public will take to mean “any and all forms of religion or no religion” while among themselves they mean only their own chosen sect whose members have not the slightest intention of tolerating religious “pluralism” once they can attain the political power needed to suppress all other “heretical” points of view. The single-spook animists do not believe in plurality, by which they mean any number greater than One. So for those who can count from two upwards without limit, best to watch what religious reactionaries do and pay no attention to what they say. The two have no necessary correlation with each other.

  15. Atty. Turley, imagine for a moment if the Preamble were binding, this blog would be moot as the education industry would be private and tuition paid for by parents. If the Founders provided for governance through the Constitution within the parameters of the Preamble, the education industry would be secured as one of “the blessings of liberty,” which must include endeavors, businesses and industries that describe our “pursuit of happiness” conducted in natural, free and open markets (i.e. capitalism). Imagine if the need for the Communist Manifesto was its difference from the Constitution, not its similarity. If the two really are different, then the Founders limited government to security (justice/tranquility/defense) and infrastructure (general welfare), deliberately excluding individual welfare, understanding that all industries (i.e. “blessings of liberty), including those of education, charity and healthcare, would be conducted in the private sector. If the Manifesto and Preamble/Constitution are different, the Founders provided for the General Welfare and deliberately excluded individual welfare or redistribution of wealth. Further, imagine if the Founders excluded redistribution and the Manifesto included it and the two are different, every program, agency and department in America that even hints of taking money from one man to give it to another is unconstitutional. Imagine if the Founders really meant “self-reliance.” Imagine if a SCOTUS were not ideological but eminently objective with extreme prejudice in assuring that the Preamble/Constitution prevailed. One ponders why the Preamble was written, in clear, simple English as read by grade school students, if only to be ignored. Imagine if the Preamble were binding and what the Founders “established, insured, provided, promoted and secured” were upheld.

  17. Additionally, when I started laughing my expatriate/ex-patriot ass off at her astute comment, my wife added: “We didn’t vote for any whiners!”

  18. When I told my Taiwanese wife about American congressmen beginning their daily sessions with primitive animistic prayers she responded with astonished incredulity:

    “You mean that they haven’t even started work and they’re already begging for help?”

    I think that about covers it.

  19. Mike,

    I had to reread what you wrote. I’ve digested them and I think I agree 1000 and 1 %. I not really think I’ve ever thought of it in those terms…. It really makes a lot of sense…. Thanks….

  20. The war on religion of which conservatives so vehemently complain is actually a war on religious pluralism being waged by conservatives. We will have a country envisioned by the Founders when Michael Murry’s poem published above is carved in granite and placed on the grounds of the capital in Montgomery next to Judge Moore’s Ten Commandments.l

Comments are closed.