This from
Teacher Mag:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Coach Marcus Borden used to bow his head and drop to one knee when his football team prayed. But the Supreme Court ended that tradition on Monday when it refused to hear the high school coach's appeal of a school district ban on employees joining a student-led prayer.
The decision on the case from New Jersey could add another restriction on prayer in schools, advocates on both sides said.
"We've become so politically correct in terms of how we deal with religion that it's being pretty severely limited in schools right now, and individuals suffer," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization that focuses on First Amendment and religious freedom issues. (Rutherford press release]
But Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said some parents had complained about Borden leading prayers before the East Brunswick, New Jersey, school district ordered him to stop and banned all staff members from joining in student-led prayer. [AU press release]
"The bottom line is people in positions of authority, like a coach, have to be extremely careful about trying to promote their ideas, or implying that if you don't pray, you may not play," Lynn said.
The high court without comment refused to reconsider the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that upheld the ban...
This from Teacher Mag:
2 comments:
This is ridiculous...whatever happened to freedom of religion which is one of the founding principles of this country...if it is "student" led prayer, then why is he being excluded from participating? "If we do not stand for something, we'll fall for anything"
Michael,
Thanks for the comment.
If you are referring to the freedom of religion this country was founded upon - well... that "freedom" included established churches in most of the colonies, taxes paid to a particular church; Quakers hanged in Massachusetts, Baptist preachers jailed in Virginia, and much more.
The original notion of freedom of religion in America was much like what was happening in Europe at the time - small religious republics. It took a few years for that wear off and it only wore off as a result of the considerable efforts of America's founders.
In the founder's time, one’s civil rights - whether you could hold office, whether you could have custody of your own children, whether you could serve in the military, were all linked to one's religious expression.
Protecting and perpetuating the value of religious liberty was thought of by our founders as freedom of thought. ...the same freedom of thought denied common folk during the days of the Holy Roman Empire under "unam sanctum."
America was to become a place where, as Washington wrote to the Jews of Newport RI, “the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.” Washington had no notion whatsoever that Jews had to become Christian - or act like they were.
(You may recognize Washington's quote from the book of Micah.)
He also wrote, "...the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
It would seem that the court recognizes that any notion of freedom of religion that allows a government (including teachers paid by the government) to lead, or appear to lead prayers is a de facto, and constitutionally prohibited, "establishment" of religion."
Non-disruptive expressions of faith that come from the students, must not be infringed upon, but the state must not appear to establish.
In this case, the coach had been leading players in prayers himself for some period of time. When parents objected because he was imposing his religious views on others, he was ordered to stop. He refused, and ultimately resigned, on principle. I can only assume the principle he held to was the right to lead "his boys" to "his faith."
One can only impagine the response if a Muslim coach insisted upon the same rights.
The court ruled properly.
As long as I'm lecturing...one of my favorite stories is about some of Kentucky's earliest settlers - called the Travelling Church.
In Virginia, Baptist preachers were being thrown in jail for preaching without a license. They couldn't get a license, because they were Baptists and Virginia's established church was Anglican.
One of those preachers was Elijah Craig, not only a man of the Word, but later, a fine Kentucky bourbon-maker. Elijah would be denied a license, preach anyway, get thrown in jail, and continue to draw crowds as he preached through the bars of his cell.
Not exactly freedom of religion the way we think of it today. But this upset Madison, Jefferson and other founders who fought against the repression of minority expression.
As John Meachem points out in American Gospel, “Baptists were the most ferocious defenders of religious liberty until they were no longer the minority.”
Craig and his big brother Lewis, led several congregations from Spotsylvania Virginia, through the gap, in winter, along with Lewis's slave Old Captain, who became the first African American to preach on Kentucky soil (Lexington).
Perhaps the most tangible demonstration of how the founders saw America is found in the explicit language of the Barbary Treaties, written by Washington, and ratified unamously by both houses of Congress during the Adams administration.
"ARTICLE 11: 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 Musselmen [Muslims],and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Mohammedan] 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."
Post a Comment