Schools Should Encourage Prayers

Some people defending the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance make the lame argument that the phrase doesn't really signify anything religious. Others, however, are more honest and acknowledge the phrases' religious meaning - and then go on to argue that there is nothing wrong with the state promoting such religious beliefs among children.

Don Erler, president of "General Building Maintenance," writes for the Dallas Fort-Worth News:

The Constitution itself does not specifically prohibit prayer in schools, a moment of silence in public classrooms, invocations at graduation ceremonies or football games, tax preferences for churches, chaplains in the military, prayers over Congress and the Supreme Court, references to God on the currency, federal recognition of Thanksgiving, public recitations of the Declaration of Independence or other similar practices that we have developed since the Pilgrims landed in 1620.

But the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise on school prayer and invocations at school ceremonies. The court's inventive dictates -- not the Constitution's words -- prohibit public school officials, including teachers, from encouraging or discouraging students to participate in prayer in schools or invocations at school events. ... These activities do not violate the "establishment clause," which was ratified between 1789 and 1791 by six states that had established churches and seven that did not.

Just so that we are clear, Don Erler is talking about the Supreme Court "precedent" which struck down government-written and government-mandated prayers in public schools. According to Erler, these decisions were wrong. According to Erler, there is no constitutional limitation on government employees (teachers) from encouraging specific religious beliefs, practices, doctrines, and rituals to children required by law to be in public schools - even if those children happen to follow a religion different from those of the teacher or even no religion at all.

This is what passes for "religious freedom" in some circles: the "freedom" of the majority to use the power and authority of the government to encourage and enforce their own religious beliefs even over the objections of religious minorities. This is a curious notion of "freedom" which looks a lot more like the typical conception of terms like "oppression" and "tyranny." If you can redefine your own "freedom" to include the oppression of those who disagree with you, then you can probably rationalize just about any nonsense to yourself.

Read More:

• Secularism 101
• Separation of Church and State 101
• Religion in Public Schools
• Newdow v. U.S. Congress (case summary & explanation)
• Pledge of Allegiance (background & origins)