From: KKRUEGER@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Kurt R. Krueger)
Subject: Re: Prayer at graduations
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:53:15 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <1992Jul22.001742.6382@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu writes:
 
> However, I seriously doubt that the SC decision could be interpreted to
> suggest that, for example, a valedictorian could be prohibited from
> personally thanking god in his speech--the valedictorian is not an agent
> of the school (and, therefore, the government), and to prohibit any mention
> of god would be to infringe upon the valedictorian's free speech rights.

Valedictorian's have been prohibited, however.  There have been a number of
cases which have not made it to the SC which have held that no speaker can
even use the word "God" in a graduation prayer because a speaker (even a
valedictorian) represents the government.  This forced one speaker to sneeze
so that those in attendence could say "God bless you" in unison.
 
> Certainly, the Court has never prohibited individuals from deciding
> *personally* to say a prayer.  Just as it has *always* been legal for an
> individual student (or teacher, or administrator, or anybody) to say a
> prayer in school--it remains legal for individuals to do so at graduations.

Not always, as I said.  I wish I could remember the names of the court cases,
but I think someone here might have them.

> A lot of people don't give a damn about anybody's rights except their own.
> Those same people would probably be outraged if it were a Islamic prayer
> being said as the benediction.  (And let's not even discuss a Satanic
> prayer...)

The fact is that this nation was not founded as an Islamic, Satanic, or
even Jewish state.  It was founded as a Christian nation, but through the
re-writing of history we've come to the point where it is supposed to have
been an absolutely secular nation.  Prayers have always opened Congress and
the Supreme Court, and schools used to be based on a Christian education.
For some reason, though, a lot of people think this would be a better nation
if we could somehow expunge all traces of religion from government.

This doesn't mean that we should treat the Jews or the Muslims unfairly or
infringe upon their rights to practice their religions.  But it does mean
that they should accept the idea that they may have to walk past a nativity
scene on the courthouse lawn during Christmas season, and that they should
not feel like they've been violated when they hear a Christian invocation
at a graduation ceremony.  I went to a Catholic university for awhile, and
as a Protestant, I heard things I didn't agree with, but I accepted that.
It is true that I chose to go there while many Jews didn't choose to be
born here, but the inconvenience to them is minor at best.  We all hear and
see things we don't like that some majority does, and that is a part of
life.

The Second Amendment was written to keep the government from establishing a
_particular_ religion and to protect minority religions from being trod
upon unduly.  Certainly the long history of non-denominational prayers at
graduations is in line with this original thinking, and if the minority ob-
ject, tough.  I have had to put up with hearing many things I didn't like
as a member of a captive audience, and I didn't whine to the courts for re-
dress.  I don't want to see the country turn into a theocracy, but the bal-
ance which the government struck for most of the nation's history worked
well.

The whole argument over religion in the public sector is the best case for
keeping government small and out of our lives.  If the government ran no
schools, but only funded education, this whole school prayer debate would
be moot.


--
/*        Kurt Krueger | kkrueger@zeus.unomaha.edu | kkrueger@unoma1        */