From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:08:55 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX


David Canzi writes in part:

>Gerry Palo writes that prayer will be banned, to the detriment of the
>rights of followers of various religions.  As you have pointed out,
>students who want to pray have ample opportunity to pray if they want.
>Their rights are in no way abridged by not having a teacher lead them
>in prayer.  Gerry Palo is either lying, or has been fooled by liars.

Please don't accuse me of lying about what will happen.  The only way I could
do that would be if I were a seer, saw what really will happen, and lied
about it.  I was not fooled by liars, either, as I have not been talking
to any seers who told me what is going to happen in this regard.  I would 
also suggest that you be careful about accusing anyone of lying and give
them the benefit of the doubt that they might be mistaken or have applied
poor logic.  

Remember, I was arguing against prayer in public schools, my main point
being that when the State runs the schools it will impose a uniform
world view on everyone.  If the current trend is atheistic or materialistic,
that is what will be taught.  If the sentiment changes, it could one day
become charismatic Christian or Catholic, or Wiccan.  My point was that
schools should be free, regardless of the funding issue.  Again, I was
stating a position against prayer in government schools and against 
government schools altogether.

As for the detriment of banning prayer, I can understand why charter members 
of this newsgroup can propose that allowing each pupil to pray in private 
would suffice to give everyone free choice. But that is not the way of 
children. Prayer in a pedagogical setting means praying together, sometimes 
even just learning a prayer which the child does not understand yet but will 
learn to understand more and more as he or she grows up with it.  Prayer 
is something that is learned just like anything else, and children learn 
things by being taught by adults.  Third graders are not the same as college 
students.  They look up to their teachers and are highly influenced by what 
they say, do, do not say, do not do.  A child is not the same as a college 
undergraduate.

Atheist children (i.e. children of atheist parents) should not have to put up 
with prayer in schools -- unless of course their parents or the state feel 
that they should be "exposed to other value systems than their own" (This 
argument was used against me by another respondent who was for government 
run schools.)  In any case, an elementary school is not a free marketplace 
of ideas where seven and eight year olds go to do their own thing.  And 
besides, the courts have basically ruled against allowing children to do 
their own thing, even by banning a "moment of silence" for meditation or
prayer or nothing at all, according to the individual choice of each child.  
Just recently a high school student was told she could not bring a Bible 
into the classroom for her own personal use. My point is that none of the 
dilemma can be solved by ruling for or against any of these things in the 
public schools.

As for me and my children, if I were sending them to public school I would
prefer no prayer at all to the insipid "invocations of the deity" that pass
for prayer where the speaker is trying to offend as few people a possible.
This gives my child a false idea of what prayer should be.  And I would
object to certain kinds of Christian prayers, e.g. of the charismatic,
evangelistic, group participation kind, which some may feel is right but
which is not right for us. But I want them to be "exposed" to an environment
in which both  reason and logic and also prayer and faith are freely
practiced, and not simply "allowed" as long as one goes into a closet to
do it.  But I don't want to impose this on people who don't want it either.

(By the way, I need to interject that if I had my choice I would not be
sending my children to a Christian school but to a Waldorf school.  The
Waldorf schools are not religious schools.  There is no Waldorf School in 
Dallas, so I send them to a Lutheran school, which I think is doing a good 
job of educating them but not as good as a Waldorf school would do.  This
is my choice.  If you want to send your child to a Summerhill school or 
to the Madeline Murray Academy, that should be your choice (and you should
not have to pay twice, especially if you are poor).

I find it ironic that the atheists, materialists, and free thinkers , those
who advocate diversity of thought, are always the first to insist on
uniform education for all, whereas most religious people are only interested
in being allowed freedom to choose their own schools.  The only exceptions
seem to be with Libertarians, many of whom are atheists.  They at least
recognize that an environment of freedom is essential for truth to prevail.
To repeat my warning, the curricula of public schools may suit your beliefs
today, but the state that promotes atheism or theistic neutrality as the
rule today can just as easily change tomorrow.  And when it does, it changes
for everyone. If religion is so self evidently foolish and materialism-
atheism is so self evidently true, why is there so much fear of diversity 
and free choice in education?

And what makes atheists think that religious people can't be interested in 
educating their children to have healthy, open, reasoning minds?  I assure you, 
thatI expect nothing less from the schools to which I send my children. I
will instruct my children as best I can to bring out that which is good and 
true and beautiful in them and to show them what is good and true and beautiful 
in the world as best as I can see it. But the aim is not be the imprinting 
of my values on them but to develop in them the capacity as adults to think
and judge for themselves.  This is not incompatible with religion but essential 
to it.  

One more time, all these problems arise because not just religion, but
education itself is something the establishment of which should not be
the role of the state.  Choice in education is as critical issue in our
society as that of choice in conception and childbearing.  Education can
only thrive in an environment of freedom.  The state, the political sphere,
by nature only knows compulsion and uniformity.

Sincerely,
Gerry Palo
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic