From: david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu (David Kaufmann)
Subject: Re: American Jews and Lubavitch
Organization: E.E. Dept., Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:45:38 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-1563]: bourbon


In article <1993Jan3.183312.4802@spcvxb.spc.edu>
siegfried_r@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
   
>In article <1992Dec27.181421.5473@cs.tulane.edu>,
david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu
> (David Kaufmann) writes:
>                 
>> A factual correction: Lubavitch supports _a moment of silence_, NOT
>> public prayer. There's a big difference. And while your logic about
>> the response of the Jewish soul is essentially correct, the moment
of
>> silence as a time for everyone to acknowledge the limitations of
human
>> reasoning and recognize the Creator, each in his/her own way...
>                                                  
> This is not intended as a criticism of either David in particular or
of
>Lubavitch in general.  My conversations with David have always been
cordial,
>which is typical of my contact with Lubavitchers.
>
Well, when you put is so politely...! In truth, what follows should
show that people can disagree on an issue yet remain cordial and
respectful.

> I am against prayer in public schools, in large part because it
>violates the separation of Church and State and because it can be
make life
>very difficult for a child who is different.  The moment of silence,
while in
>principle a good idea, has its own problems in this regard.
>
There are two points here, of different weight: whether an act
violates the Constitution and the effects, positive and negative, of
an act. One is legal, the other moral/practical. By the way, I too am
against prayer in public schools (I suffered through it, too.)

But the issue here is the moment of silence. Is it
legal/Constitutional, and will its results be more desirable than not?

> The moment of silence can serve to remind many that if it were not
>because of those who are different, they could have public prayer in
pbulic
>schools,  It gives a religious, or irreligious, minority another
reason to
fear

>being pointed out by those who wish to hold them up to scorn.
>
Robert here points out two possible negative results: The moment of
Robert here points out two possible negative results: The moment of
silence _might_ focus attention on the absence of prayer and arouse
the ire of the "majority" (for lack of a better word); it _might_
focus that ire on a minority.

These two aspects of the same point deserve consideration. In
response, though, I'd like to examine it a little more closely, and
point out a counterbalance, the potential positive results.

Currently, public prayer in public schools is unConstitutional, thanks
to a suit brought by an atheist some thirty years ago, based on the
 establishment clause. Now, let's assume that a moment of silence is
deemed Constitutional (a legally valid, if controversial, position,
since it is religiously neutral and does not establish any religion
over another). Let's also assume that an attempt to use the moment of
silence as a legal basis for reintroducing public prayer is rejected,
for the same reasons it was declared unconstitutional. We now have a
clear legal distinction.

So we now ask: who is going to react as Robert suggests? Not the
minority groups, certainly, and not the religiously
indifferent/neutral students and parents. Even those who are strong in
their private faith but do not agree with public expressions or
attempts to impose religion will not be offended by that a moment of
silence does not permit public prayer. If anything, these groups would
be "offended" by the permission for a moment of silence, not the
absence of public prayer.

The only group, then, that would be offended/reminded by a moment of
silence's preclusion of public prayer would be evangelical,
proselytizing Christians. Assuming they send their children to public
schools, they are not a majority. Of course, a campaign could be
mounted to discredit the moment of silence in this way, but given the
politics of political correctness and diversity in the classroom, and
given the reputation of the "religious right," such a campaign's
success is far from guaranteed, and would probably backfire. Public
schools are hardly hotbeds of any kind of religion.

Furthermore, whatever prejudice or bigotry a moment of silence would
reveal already exists and has much "better" avenues of expression.

On the other hand, a moment of silence (properly presented) would
focus attention on the unity behind the diversity (any old ST fans out
there?), raise the issues of morality and community/commonality. The
moral force that led the UN into Somalia can be/needs to be focused on
the inner problems, as well.

> What David says about prayer is true, and I salute Lubavitch and all
>those who bring both Jews and Gentiles nearer to G-d through prayer.
But the
>United States Constitution makes prayer a PRIVATE matter, something
that is no
>one else's business, which every American should be free to practice
or not
>practice in the manner in which they wish to handle it.  And let us
remember
>that children do not handle standing out in the wrong way the way in
which
>adults do.
>
I don't really disagree with this paragraph. But the moment of
silence, as presented by the Rebbe, is not a prayer at all, but an
acknowledgment that the Divine imperative unites all mankind and that
morality, to be true, must be above a particular group's specific
applications of it to beliefs and rituals.

Also, the moment of silence is as likely to prevent children from
standing out as it is to cause it, by the nature of such a moment.

> I take both my faith as a Jew and my belief in the Constituion
>seriously, as I believe others here do.  And I fear the potential
abuse of the
>moment of silence.
>
Rest assured, that I also take my faith as a Jew and my support of the
Constitution seriously. But I fear more the moral degeneracy of our
public schools, and the violence and bigotry and lost childhoods that
result, more than the _potential_ abuse of the moment of silence.

Until the _moment of silence_ is either passed into law or tested in
the courts, or tried out in a sample school district, though, the
discussion of its _potential_ abuse remains theoretical. The increased
disrespect, disintegration and violence associated with public
schools, directly tied to a breakdown of morals and the teaching of
responsibility, remains very real.

(An end note: Robert, I respect your opinion (not just your right to
it) and thank you for expressing it so well.)
David Kaufmann
INTERNET:	david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu