Ed Brayton has a good blog post entitled “Religion and the Majoritarian Impulse” in which he discusses the case of Russell County High School in Kentucky. Apparently they had a tradition where the students elected a “graduation chaplain” who led a Christian prayer at the graduation ceremony. A Muslim student who was graduating filed suit to stop that tradition and a judge issued an injunction against it.
So instead, in the middle of the principal’s opening remarks, 200 students stood up, interrupted the proceedings, and recited the Lord’s prayer, prompting a standing ovation from most of those in attendance. That act received praise from the school principal and superintendant.
The Superintendent labeled the mass defiance an example of “critical thinking” that demonstrates an ability to make compelling decisions on one’s own.
The reaction didn’t stop there. The students booed the student who brought suit as he received his diploma and walked across the stage.
Mr. Brayton goes on:
Now, whether the judge’s ruling was correct or not is not the issue here; it’s a close call from a con law standpoint. But with all of the fervent cheering going on for these kids on the right side of the internet, I must dissent. I think what they did was act like a bully. On the religionlaw listserv, one enthusiastic supporter of action praised kids for celebrating “the spirit of liberty”. David Guinn of Baylor law school gave what seems to me to be the perfect response. He wrote:
First, the students (as approved by Prof. Duncan) are using prayer not as a religious devotion but as a political act — to express their disapproval of the one student and the “unelected judiciary” and as a weapon against others that don’t share in that faith. That strikes me as sacralege as well as a perversion.
Second, why is it necessary to make these prayers public in a public forum? This sounds a little too much like the hypocrites of Mt. 6:5 If it is a matter of needing community, why not a community made up of fellow believers rather than demanding the audience of those who might not believe (or believe as they do)?
While it may be “their” commencement, it is also the commencement of all of the other students and their families present. Should everyone be allowed to interrupt the service and impose their religious exhortation on everyone else?
Graduations frequently involve not just commencement, but a series of celebrations over the course of the weekend. Why not reserve religious celebrations for a separate ceremony shared among their community of faith? The only justification I can come up with is the belief that their faith is so weak that it must be endorsed by the school in the public ceremony.
I find the whole thing offensive and sad…..
I’ve probably quoted way too much, but the post is so dead on. I’m particularly struck by David Guinn’s statement that seems to capture so much of what is wrong with public proclamations of religious belief these days: The proclaimers are using prayer not as a religious devotion but as a political act and as a weapon against others that don’t share in that faith. It is sacrilege and perversion.
Privatizaton would resolve the issue.
To paraphrase Neil Boortz: Any parent who send their kids to government schools is evil.
Whoever chooses the prayer,controls the agenda. The Constitution,on the other hand, lays out a process,and is there to serve us all.I think this is considered ‘liberal thinking’ by fundamentalists and is what conservatives think is wrong with public education,and public school teachers.. Ever notice how today’s conservatives are always giving lectures on what the Constitution SHOULDNT allow,and WHO shouldnt be allowed to do it? We need to teach better in our schools what the nature of the Constitution is.We used to.
Private school might resolve the prayer issue. It won’t resolve the issue that those kids are apparently being taught to be bullies with respect to their religion. Some day, presumably, they’ll have to interact publicly with people of different faiths. It would be nice if they were taught that it is important to do so with some respect.
The booing of that student was mean and flat wrong.
However, I do not see a problem with the students praying like that. It was not led by the school, so what is the problem? I clearly remember that a few years ago, when play led by school staff was banned, that a student doing it was OK. Now, the students are not allowed to do it on their own?
I agree, we do need to consider the feelings of others, but how far can we take that? What if someone feels that wearing a female Muslim head covering is offensive? Someone might feel like that is a sign of men controlling women and not want Muslim women wearning that to school. Before you say “We wouldn’t ban things like that”, think about the Conferate Flag being banned in many cases. WHILE I SUPPORT THAT BAN, I must agree that it is a very slippery slope.
Take a look at how far France has gone with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools
I don’t see any real legal problem with the kids interrupting the ceremony like that, provided it was truly spontaneous.
That the school officials praised the students’ boorish behavior afterward is troublesome.
Cases like these seem to characterize those who adhere to the Christian religion as the bullies (as one post labeled), while ignoring the single person that successfully holds the majority of the class hostage to *his* preferences. Who’s the real “bully?” A tradition of a student chaplain, elected by the student body, and reciting a single prayer at commencement is an action of the students, by the students and for the students. Other schools have a tradition of electing the commencement speaker. Same thing, and in the cosmic sense of things, no big deal.
Some people misconstue religion as a right,or even duty to show disprespect to those who ‘God hates’.Religion takes the flavor of the culture of those who attend church,so we have rattle snake handlers in some worships and incense and
and baroque music at others.Again, Let’s stick to Constitutional LAW for our measure of justice.
Merriam Webster definition of bully:
Clearly the 200 “Christian” students have more power than the 1 Muslim student. So, I don’t think the Muslim student can be characterized as a “bully.” He is in a position of weakness standing up to the position of power.
Something of a digression, but it occurs to me that the students appear to have been absent from Bible school the day they were discussing the virtue of humility as well as when they discussed the passage in Matthew containing an admonition against ostentatious prayer.
Just another example of power tending to corrupt, I suppose. If Islam were the majority religion in that community, I doubt the Christian families would be too upset about a court ruling that prayer ought to be left out of the public school ceremony entirely.
The enforcement of a constitutional right is not an act of “bullying.” It is an act of patriotism. Pure and simple patriotism.
The “election” of a chaplain does not cure the constitutional ill since the government (school) still controls access to the podium and confers its implicit approval on the doctrine being spoken from it. It is no different than the Bosma case — except the victims of the constitutional infirmity are of a more impressionable (and peer concious) age.
Doug,
I wonder if the best and the brightest of this Kentucky region will look to their graduation as a sure sign to go college, graduate, leave home and never look back.
Last week the IndyStar had several article on Japanese automakers looking to expand or locate new plants in Indiana. This is once again goes against the 1990’s trend of foreign automakers almost exclusively moving production to the solid south. This is also inspite of the fact that Southern State are will to be far more generous in terms of opening up the public treasury and giving a way the store in terms of tax breaks and other goodies.
I wonder if horror stories of Japanese and Korean managers and engineers having to raise their families in the rural south, given the increase in militant religious dominionist activity, have simply convinced senior management to look elsewhere and return to the automobile manufacturing heartland of the midwest.
I really enjoy reading the Masson Blog and the way trained professionals see things differently from us common folk. Instead of even considering both parties involved were right to do what they did, sides were taken to defend the actions, either by the “majority” or the “minority”. I would think if the school had done this for years, then tradition should have been preserved and continued. We are suppose to be tolerate of each other but when one person decides he or she is more important than the “majority”, stuff will happen.