From David Limbaugh's latest book:



It is my position that administration or faculty leading a prayer in school could be considered a violation of the 1st Amendment. However, I would argue, preventing an individual from praying before his meal is also robbing someone of his 1st Amendment rights.

wow, I didn't know we had prayer Nazis roaming the lunchrooms of public schools.

This is ridiculous. The kid should have been allowed to pray. He was infringing on nobody's rights. Another one of the many reasons why I favor privatized education.

This story is not so hot off the presses

Gingrich And The Praying Student

Hugo, I think your assessment of the First Amendment is right on. It's supposed to protect our freedom to choose our spiritual life, not to protect others who might be offended by seeing someone pray. I don't think this instance is very indicative of any larger issue or trend, however. I like Dennis Miller's advice to people who support mandatory school prayer- actually be a parent and pray with your kid instead of foisting it off on the overwhelmed public schools. Likewise, too many people treat the fact that teachers can't force you to pray as an intrusion on religion. If God and the Constitution didn't want the young to have free will, They wouldn't have given it.

Thanks,Eeyore for the info. Like a lot of things that sound too outrageous to be true, it may well be.Well, instead of debating the facts of the case, let me pose another question. What are legitimate limits that schools can place on a student's religious expression. Can they legitimately stop a prayer over a meal? Evangelizing in the hallways? Wearing of religious symbols? Is there a point where one students expression of religion imposes on other students?

Assuming the facts of the case are as David Limbaugh states (and let's not lose sight of the fact that he is extremely conservative, and that his book is all about the "liberal war on Christianity" (sic)) then clearly the teacher and the school administration are completely in the wrong.

Surprised to be hearing this from an avowed fanatic for separation of church and state? You shouldn't be. I am as staunch a defender of individual religious expression as I am an enemy of governmental religious expression. Let's fight the very few cases of government repression of individual religious expression as passionately as we fight the very many cases of government religious expression.

EDIT: To reply to Hugo's second question:

I see no reason why there should be any effort made to stop praying (unless it is clearly disruptive -- loud screaming in the middle of a classroom, for example) or religious symbols or polite expression of one's religious beliefs. Clearly some types of behavior are simply not acceptable, but any normal individual expression of religious belief should be allowed.

Ok, well, I'll just assume for the sake of argument that Limbaugh's story is correct and he did not accidently-on purpose omit any other details of his anecdote. Having said that, I'll agree with you, Hugo (this is getting scary), that the child's 1st Amendment rights were violated and that the school was in the wrong. I have long felt that school organized religious events are unconstitutional, however, the right of the individual to say, pray before a meal, is very much protected. The school officials in this case probably over-reacted a tad bit, but I have to say that any religion (except for the teaching of the history of a given religion as it pertains to world events) has NO place in an educational institution.

Just to review, the facts seem to be obviously blown out of proportion and this is an old recycled story. (See my previous link.)

On hugo's follow up question:
I think public school students should have the right to conduct private prayers but not have the right to conduct evangelical activity on school grounds.

Edited to add a link revealing the reality of allowable and unconstitutional religious activity in schools

Link

I think the proper cut off would be where it becomes a legitimate disruption of practical concerns of education. Evangelizing, threatening speech, etc. all have secular parallals that are barred in the schools, and are quite arguably not necessary to anyone's religion in school. I've heard the argument that some Evangelical groups consider this necessary, I doubt Christ specifically mentioned Summitview Elementary. But the disruption should be a real one, not someone who doesn't like the Star of David or Cross or Crescent or Yin Yang or Pentagram (inverted or not) or those adorable Darwin Fish. Acceptable religious expression- i.e. explaining one's belief as opposed to harassing someone- should be fixed by the secular rules on what's harassment and what's merely offensive/annoying.

A student or a faculty member for that matter should have the right to pray over their food at lunchtime. They are not hurting anyone by the personal, private expression of their faith. We don't really want to treat this like totalitarians do, do we? Freedom of speech, as outlined, did not specify the type of speech we are free to utter other than providing proscriptions mentioned in previous posts here.

Freedom from religion is sometimes carried to extremes. It would be better to have people retain the right to pray (a moment of silence for those who do not pray) silently, to be given time to do so in school, by themselves, instead of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag repeatedly until the consciousness of the students is deadened toward the meaning of the words (I like the flag, not flagolatry).

I always feel a conflict about praying in a restaurant over my food. God knows I am thankful for the food and for the people who are with me. There are a couple of comforting Bible verses for folks like me who feel a little self-conscious about praying in public:

I would put a lot of this to blame on Christian right organizations and their relentless battle to put their faith in the public school system. As much as i don’t agree with how this situation was handled, it does seem rather extreme, i think a lot of it has to do with the related battles going on today, children like always are just the helpless victims of such activities.

I say the private run education for America is bad, not only does segregation never pay off, its worse in a capitalist system, plus most parents would not be able to afford such or have the time to even be with the kids these days little lone educate them in the basics and beyond.

People have to learn to live together, this means a certain amount of surrender of identity when it comes to the public. Then overall you have all the various groups of America trying to get power, its a vicious cycle, and provides more damage then benefits, and yet another reason why i wont be having children

While I doubt the veracity of Limbaugh's tale, it would, of course, be evil if it were true, and this is coming from a fairly died-in-wool atheist.

When prayer, or any other activity, is disruptive to education, stop it from occurring at school. Silent prayer doesn't have the capability of disrupting anything.

Seems to be a lot of doubt about D. Limbaugh's tale. Everyone agrees that kids should not be punished for praying if they aren't doing something that's plain annoying or disruptive.

Same here. Hell, I prayed like the mad all the way through school! Especially when hiking a football with a vicious defensive center bearing down on me.

But the real touchstone is how annoying/disruptive prayer gets. The First Amendment guarantees us the right to freely practice our religions just as it gives us free speech, but both are restricted for various reasons. You've got your porno shops and street corner preachers, but neither belong in or near an institution of education.

Little side story: Was having lunch with Lydia the other day in a favorite greasy spoon when this lady behind me said Grace in a pretty loud manner. Lydia and I had to wait until she was through to carry on with our conversation. Then the Grace lady started talking loudly about her pathetic little life. Her companion seemed embarrassed.

Seems that some people just want attention and they don't seem to be getting enough of it from their god.

I agree. So long as the kid was praying silently to himself and not causing a ruckus to others, then his freedom was abridged by the teacher. If the kid was dancing on the table and screaming the prayer, then the teacher had every right to stop it.

You can't possibly take prayer out of school, you just can't allow public displayes of pseudo-piety.

Its ironic that this 'wall of seperation' was originally a Christian theology that was developed during the Reformation:

"builders, who, if they see a breach in a wall, instantly and carefully repair it: they are like gardeners who do not allow either a field or a vineyard to be exposed to wild beasts." (Jon Calvin, Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel 13:10-11)

The first amendment specifically forbids the government from prohibiting the free exercise religious liberty. The 'wall of seperation' is being breach by people that just dont like religion. That is diametrically opposed to the original intent of the Constitution. When Jefferson coined the phrase to the Danbury Baptists he was using a theological image they were thouroghly well aquainted with. They sought seperation from what they felt was a staking, sinister, predatory world system. Jefferson was assuring them the wall of seperation they wanted so earnestly was firmly in place. I doubt seriously he would have ever expected that it could be twisted to stop someone from praying. Clearly this is another attack on religious freedom and has become all too common.

Seperation of Church and State

I agree with you there, and I also doubt the veracity of Limbaugh's story... but what about this case. There are some cases where SOCAS is used to discriminate against Christians (though it is certainly rarer than they claim). Would you agree with the decision to change the inscription on the brick? It is after all a "public display of pseudo-piety".

I amen the things said here.

Individual freedom of religion should be permissable as long as it's not disruptive. I guess the problem is that some people find an individuals expression of faith as offensive. And that of course is subjective. It's much easier to get consensus if something is disruptive than something that is offensive.

I dont agree with the removal of that couples words from the brick, since the brick had their name on it, and it easily determinable that it is them that is saying it, it is not a seperation of church and state issue.
pseudo piety perhaps, but we cannot know that, or be able to judge if it is.
its not like their brick has a loudspeaker that yells "THANK YOU JESUS!!!!" whenever anyone walks by. it is a simple and non aggressive phrase of thanks to the diety that the couple believes in.



Quane

We need to be careful labeling a person's expression of faith "pseudo-piety." Unless the person is a crook and a total reprobate and this can be proven, we can't say that the person's expression is false.

Nobody's kid is going to be unduly influenced by one brick, positively or negatively, unless maybe the kid falls on the brick and gets hurt.

It does seem that there are a lot more objections raised these days about the public displays of religion than there ever were before. I think it has to do more with the complainer's personal attitude than with Constitutionality in many cases.

I agree with QuaneCorsair.

(I used to work with a person who often said, "I don't go to church because there are so many hypocrites." I always managed to stifle the impulse to say, "That's okay--there's always room for one more!" )

For the record, I was using Cephus' quote in an attempt to bring up an example where a public display was being wrongfully prohibited.
Although to be honest I do tend to distrust public displays of piety...

There are certainly cases where things go too far, but there are many, many cases where theists (not just Christians, although they are the most guilty in the US) do their level best to push their religious beliefs on others and cry bloody murder if they aren't allowed to. It's funny that they push so hard for prayer in school to be 'fair' and then whine about it if anyone but a Christian wants to publically pray at school functions.

As for the brick, I think that's pushing things a bit. However, if someone had a similar brick that said "Thank you Satan", you'd better believe the Christians would be demanding it be removed.

Paladin Elsbeth writes:


Nobody needs to pray at the top of their lungs, nobody needs to make a public show out of their faith. Anyone who insists on standing up before the group and making a performance of their beliefs isn't exercising their beliefs, they are trying to convert the group. Kids can pray silently to themselves any time they want, no one can stop them. When they want to take those private prayers and make them a public event, that's pseudo-piety.

There is a difference between pseudo-piety and fanaticism, which you are describing here. It's pseudo-piety when the person cynically represents himself or herself as a believer for entertainment value. A good many of these folks are sincere; there is no pseudo-anything in what they're doing.

But then it's what these folks do in private that separates the phonies from the true believers.

This was a private display of piety in a public place, rather than a display of piety paid for, and sanctioned, by the state Parks and Recreation Commission.

I don't interpret this as discrimination, but rather as a case of over-zealousness by, not the Parks and Recreation Commission, but one of the volunteers who had led the construction effort.

Big difference, in my mind.

I personally find piety annoying in all places at all times, but I still would have left the inscription as it was, with the "offending" message.

Although (on the basis of Eeyore's links) it looks like Limbaugh is full of hot air, such a hypothetical incident would clearly be a violation of the child's free speech rights. We've had other mentions in these threads of things like a child being chastised for wearing a crucifix or Juber3 being told not to bring his Bible to school. These - as well as the bowdlerized brick - are all infringements on the First Amendment.

What must be understood is that separation works both ways: the state can neither promote nor prohibit religious expression. A child has every right to say grace before eating - whether it's in sincere gratitude to some deity for cafeteria food or an expression of pseudo-piety. I would also say that a child has every right to proselytize in the hallways between classes - just as his or her peers would have every right to tell them where to go. What would - and should - be proscribed would be a teacher leading the entire student body in prayer before lunch or the state funding a park full of "Thank you, Jesus" bricks.

Any of these petty, extremist "interpretations" of the First Amendment could lead to a backlash in which we might well see our separation rights being stripped.

I agree with Wertz. As long as the person who is displaying his/her faith in public is not a government employee (or has that particular hat off at the time), the state is not promoting any religion. A child in a public school should have the right to pray, silently or aloud, just as a child should never be forced to pray.

No, it's pseudo-piety when these people are using prayers for an ulterior motive, that of promoting their religion, rather than simply praying. If said prayers are disruptive to the educational process, they need to be banned, and they are. Of course, as the saying goes, so long as there are tests in school, there will be prayers, and that's fine so long as they are legitimate prayers, not obvious commercials for religion.

I disagree, Cephus. There's a difference between a performance for the sake of self-aggrandizement and a genuine attempt to interest someone in finding what the believer has found in his/her religion. I'm sure that some evangelistic types take a sort of pride like notches on their spiritual gun handle each time they bring a new convert into the fold, but everybody is not this way.

The word "fan" comes from "fanatic." You see these Green Bay Packer fans wearing cheese wedge hats or painting their bodies and carrying on--it's a ritual. It can get a little obnoxious. Would you call that pseudo-football fan behavior?

Public expression of a person's religious faith can be the same way. If the people involved are doing it to get attention, they get it and they're happy. A person who is genuinely concerned about the salvation of souls usually doesn't take that direction. The people whose faith did the most for me on my spiritual quest live quiet, pious lives, and they wouldn't dream of grandstanding their faith.

But we're not all the same in what we do. And I agree that public school is not the place for disruptions and distractions to occur. Quiet observance of one's own spirituality is far preferable, and should still be perfectly permissible as far as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights go.

In either case, a public school classroom is not the place for such activities. In fact, I can't think of too many public places where trying to convert the people around you without their permission, but at least at the park, people can walk away from you. That's not possible in a classroom where the theist has a captive audience.

Further, there are evangelical parents who are using their kids to try to pass on their beliefs. There was one story that I recall where an 8-year old kid was finally expelled because he insisted, at his parent's direction, on standing on his desk, holding his Bible up high and praying at the top of his lungs every single day and his parents applauded his efforts.

This kind of thing doesn't belong in school at all. If you wish to pray for your own purposes, fine. If you're out to convert the world, take a hike.

If I'm not mistaken, when prayer was taken out of school it was under the premise that students were forced to pray and at certain times. I'm not oppossed to that. I've always felt that prayer should be done of free will. I certainly don't have a problem with any child praying at anytime. This facism and persecution needs to stop. There is nothing in the law that says a child can't pray when ever he feels like it. Only that the schools can't make prayer mandatory or force a child to do it. I'll tell you how I would've handled it if I were that child's Daddy, I would have gone down to the school and kicked the everlovin' crap outta that teacher.

I remember in the 6th grade I was not allowed to make the sign of a the cross when saying grace over my school lunch. I didn't make a habit of it, or a big scene, I just did my thing and bowed my head. The students could have cared less but the teachers went spastic, I had no idea why. I dont really have a problem with preventing professional clerics from indoctrinating kids into their own brand of religion. I do have a problem with the religious liberties of children being trampled under the feet of over zealous secular clerics. Its pure censorship to forbid it when the First Amendment forbids government from making (much less trying to enforce) any law respecting the free exercise of religion. They have no legal or moral right to restrict this kids God given, natural right, to pray or not to pray. Any questions as to the legality of this kind of blantant censorship should consult their Bill of Rights.

At which point you would have gone to jail for assault, and rightfully so.

If that story is true, and it's looking like it isn't, then the teacher should have been reprimanded for his actions. It is *WRONG* to stop a personal, private, non-disruptive exercise of faith. It is also *WRONG* for one student, teacher, or other individual to force their beliefs on others in a school environment (or anywhere else, for that matter).

As for it being legal to pray loudly, no one is contesting that. Is it proper? No. There are plenty of Christian parents who would have a fit if a Muslim student was leading prayers to Allah in the classroom, but have no problem with their own religion being pushed on non-Christians. Hypocracy? Hell yes.