Nondisruptive voluntary prayer remains a cherished human right, in school or elsewhere. Admittedly, the parameters and limitations of "nondisruptive" and "voluntary" are rather sharply drawn, but the set rules are firmly in place. At times the restriction or the praying can be overzealous, and either one needs to be corrected. As long as nobody oversteps their bounds, prayer per se is certainly not "forbidden" in public schools.
Moving along, the next question is the details of the proposal. What do the words "bring prayer back to public schools" really mean? Naturally, this assumes that the person's "status" is a truly desired change that flesh-and-blood teachers and students will do, not a wishful-thinking slogan or outburst. Does it mean nothing more than a three-minute moment of silence, in which active young children are expected to be quiet and sedate if they aren't opting to pray?
To the contrary, my presumption is that what the status-writer would like is a short recitation of a canned prayer, taught and led by the teacher. After all, allowing the teacher to make whatever extemporaneous prayer he or she likes is probably not what the status-writer intends! Since there can be no religious test for public school teachers, that would be an "anything goes" proposition, perhaps including teachers who are - gasp! - atheistic.
Then the next practical question is who will write The Prayer that's taught in public schools, and who will approve it. Is there to be a tyranny of the majority, in which the religion with the least number of naysayers has the privilege of educating the rest to rigid conformity? If not, and The Prayer must meet at least a minimal standard of acceptability by a wide range of religious believers, then my suspicion is that in the end it will be "cleansed" of most doctrines that the status-writer holds dear. Claims that Jesus resurrected, or that the Bible (KJV? NIV? Septuagint?) is truth, won't last long. Does this form of completely inoffensive prayer have much to do with Christianity?
Imagine that The Prayer is eventually written and duly recited in classrooms. What is the expected outcome? Will students who are coerced into memorizing and mumbling mush act more holy? Will teachers who hurry through in order to get to the day's lesson have epiphanies? When casual attendance of weekly church services isn't enough to turn people into disciples, what effect could The Prayer have? Needless to say, those who disagree with the statements won't be any closer to salvation by mouthing the words.
Religious instruction or Bible classes are much more likely to raise children who have the right knowledge. Yet those are highly inappropriate in a school targeted at the general public. Parents may not agree with all or any of the content in those classes, and they'd be rightly irritated by the school's attempts to introduce contradictions. Far better would be if parents could select separate schools that target their particular beliefs. Everyone surely realizes that this solution has been in place in the USA for many, many years?...
I'll grant that the removal of coercive public school prayer is a symbol of the reduced influence of Christianity in the USA's culture. And its symbolic importance incites visceral feelings among some Christians. But it seems to me that a symbol is all it can be. Reversing it won't reset the past decades.
Moving along, the next question is the details of the proposal. What do the words "bring prayer back to public schools" really mean? Naturally, this assumes that the person's "status" is a truly desired change that flesh-and-blood teachers and students will do, not a wishful-thinking slogan or outburst. Does it mean nothing more than a three-minute moment of silence, in which active young children are expected to be quiet and sedate if they aren't opting to pray?
To the contrary, my presumption is that what the status-writer would like is a short recitation of a canned prayer, taught and led by the teacher. After all, allowing the teacher to make whatever extemporaneous prayer he or she likes is probably not what the status-writer intends! Since there can be no religious test for public school teachers, that would be an "anything goes" proposition, perhaps including teachers who are - gasp! - atheistic.
Then the next practical question is who will write The Prayer that's taught in public schools, and who will approve it. Is there to be a tyranny of the majority, in which the religion with the least number of naysayers has the privilege of educating the rest to rigid conformity? If not, and The Prayer must meet at least a minimal standard of acceptability by a wide range of religious believers, then my suspicion is that in the end it will be "cleansed" of most doctrines that the status-writer holds dear. Claims that Jesus resurrected, or that the Bible (KJV? NIV? Septuagint?) is truth, won't last long. Does this form of completely inoffensive prayer have much to do with Christianity?
Imagine that The Prayer is eventually written and duly recited in classrooms. What is the expected outcome? Will students who are coerced into memorizing and mumbling mush act more holy? Will teachers who hurry through in order to get to the day's lesson have epiphanies? When casual attendance of weekly church services isn't enough to turn people into disciples, what effect could The Prayer have? Needless to say, those who disagree with the statements won't be any closer to salvation by mouthing the words.
Religious instruction or Bible classes are much more likely to raise children who have the right knowledge. Yet those are highly inappropriate in a school targeted at the general public. Parents may not agree with all or any of the content in those classes, and they'd be rightly irritated by the school's attempts to introduce contradictions. Far better would be if parents could select separate schools that target their particular beliefs. Everyone surely realizes that this solution has been in place in the USA for many, many years?...
I'll grant that the removal of coercive public school prayer is a symbol of the reduced influence of Christianity in the USA's culture. And its symbolic importance incites visceral feelings among some Christians. But it seems to me that a symbol is all it can be. Reversing it won't reset the past decades.
No comments:
Post a Comment