Federal Judge, Sarah Evans Barker, writing for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has issued an order enjoining Greenwood High School from proceeding with its planned school prayer. (via the Indiana Law Blog (pdf)). One of the folks I follow on Twitter was tweeting about the oral argument yesterday, and it sounded like the Bose McKinney lawyers hired by the school corporation were having a tough time of it.
The issue, generally, is that Greenwood High School went out of its way to have an election for the purpose of asking graduating students whether they wanted a prayer at their commencement. The senior class secretary or treasurer would be called upon to lead the prayer, written by that person but subjected to prior approval by the school administration. This, according to prior Supreme Court precedent as reviewed by Judge Barker, is unconstitutional. This is not an open forum, it’s a closely controlled government function. The school engineered a process – by setting up the vote – that would lead to a controlled government forum in which students were required to sit through a school-approved prayer.
I can’t read minds, so I don’t know for sure, but I’m skeptical about the motive behind these efforts to pray at public, government sponsored events. I can’t believe these things enhance the relationship between an individual who desires it and their god in any way that can’t be accomplished an hour earlier or an hour later. I’m left to conclude that it’s a desire by those people to enhance the relationship between third-parties and God. But, more than that, as I’ve said before, it looks to me like marking territory. The people who believe in God and actively push for these kinds of prayers want to demonstrate that *they* are in control. Anyone else just lives here.
(Indy Star article for further reading)
As a Christian, I’m never sure about the point of these kinds of prayers, either. I think you’re right about the “marking territory” idea, especially for those right-wing Christians who subscribe to the whole Seven Mountains theory. I think others push these kinds of things, knowing they will get struck down, because they want to justify their sense of persecution.
And not to get too theological, but we know that Jesus didn’t think much of this kind of behavior, either: “And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others.” (Matthew 6:5)
In the legal sense, this was an open and shut case. Anyone with a passing knowledge would know it wouldn’t stand up to challenge. A common problem is that the average person doesn’t know what legal precedents are floating around at any given time. If they do, as the superintendent’s comments in this case seem to indicate, they’re doing it just to make a point. The latter scenario scares me because it means that pushy people will knowingly violate the Constitution and if no one calls them out on it, they get away with it. It’s nice to know that the ACLU is there to step in, but why should they have to waste their resources on a pointless challenge?
Brian,
This is an extremely gray area of the law. I highly doubt they did it knowing it would be struck down.
Basically if students on their own come up with a prayer without school officials involvement, the prayer must be allowed or you’re violating the Free Exercise of Religion Clause. If the school adminstration is involved in developing or approving the prayer, then the school district runs afoul of the Establishment Clause. In individual cases that can be a very fine line between the two.
It seems like the Establishment Clause has come to be interpreted pretty strictly – my take has been that enjoins the federal government from establishing a national church/religion (which I heartily agree with).
And it certainly does that – but it seems to have become overly restrictive to no particularly good purpose, overall.
In the irony department, I wonder what the chaplain of the U.S. Senate thinks of it?
Megan, it was hardly an “open and shut case.” If handled slightly differently, then the student prayer wouldhave been constitutionally protected.
Parker, I don’t think there is any question that the Establishment Cluase has been interpreted much more broadly (I wouldn’t say “strictly”) than what it was originally intended.
What was the point of Greenwood High School’s government sponsored prayer?
Doug, I don’t think the “point” of the prayer matters. If it’s student intiated prayer, it’s protected. If it has any school involvement in its initiation, then it’s not protected.
Imagine a priest praying the rosary before an open public meeting and it gives perspective for Protestants the(negative) power of what public prayer can have..Many would surely demand ‘equal time’. Every prayer shows the religious framework which inspires it… But ‘swearing on the Bible’ in taking oaths seems to have become a secularized ritual.No one sees it as ‘religious’,imo.
Paul, I understand your point from the perspective of Supreme Court statements about that Constitutional provisions. But, from a non-legal perspective, it matters to me. What, precisely, are proponents of this kind of prayer trying to accomplish? Make God happy? Help their relationship with God? Forestall the moral collapse of a decadent society?
Dunno much about the law, but I know a little about school corporations. This one combines the petty tyranny too common in school administration with someone’s half-baked and politically-motivated notion that the school could hide behind that Free Speech argument, which has, as I understand it, mostly applied to commencement exercises and pre-game prayers. If administrators didn’t imagine they’d lose a court challenge I doubt this was caused by the existence of that “grey area” they strode across like God’s Own Battalion. It was because they figured no one would dare oppose it. (By the way, thanks again to Channel 8 for digging up a school yearbook picture of Eric Workman and broadcasting it with every mention of the story.)
I think a larger question than what sort of Christian–commanded by God’s Only Son not to be a hypocrite about prayer, let’s remember–sees fit to force those of other or non-belief to witness his public piety, is what sort of school administration continues this practice–and hires attorneys at the public’s expense–after a student (and the Valedictorian, at that) objects?
I am sure all of those clamoring about loss of freedom and intrusion of the courts (blamed on those liberal socialists) over this judge refusing to let our American Schools have a student led prayer during the graduation ceremony would be just as upset had the students voted to have a Muslim lead them in bowing to Allah. Yes, I can see them fighting for the right of the Moonies to offer up their prayer during same said ceremony. The fact that all our elected officials demand that their sessions open with prayer and the courts have one swear on the bible is a tribute to past times, when white men ruled and god spoke to them. Or perhaps it is a plea for help from above given their lack of ability to get anything useful and productive accomplished. And the court prayer is to protect the innocent from all those attornys gathered in one place :)
These are school board/administration control and marking-their- territory kind of issues. Whatever attorney gave them the advice that this would fly, if challenged in Court, should be made to re-take undergrad and law school Constitutional Law classes before dispensing further
legal advice.
I sit on a jury which Judge Barker presided over–I was very impressed with her guidance–I know that judges must go by law & Sarah is very smart–however we live in a democarcy where majority rules–the majority in this case were discriminated against and the minority vote got his/her way–sounds like the school’s legal counsil did not do a very good job
That’s the default setting, of course. But it’s nowhere near the whole story. The entire point of the Bill of Rights, really, is that majority doesn’t always rule. The majority can’t (legally) vote to silence me in violation of the First Amendment; it can’t (legally) vote to take away my property without due process; it can’t (legally) vote to quarter troops in my house during times of peace; etc. The majority can generally protect its own interests. The Constitutional limitations on government mainly serve to protect the minority against abuse by the majority.