Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

The whole problem in the U.S. - No prayer in public schools?

Posted 23 months ago|25 comments|1,047 views
Written by
Meredith
Grand Rapids, MI
I received an e-mail recently (not the first of its kind) stating that the whole problem in the U.S. today is that we don't allow prayer, or God in our public schools. The message here asserted that separation of church and state was only working in favor of non-Christian individuals, and more specifically the non-religious, agnostic and atheistic individuals in our society. So, here's my rant and my take on the subject:

First of all, the facts; prayer in public school is not illegal or even unconstitutional. Students have a constitutional right to individually pray in school, as long as it isn't disruptive to others and of the learning process. The problem comes in when a school official or someone representing the school leads students in prayer. This sends a very strong message that his or her religion and way of praying is the right way.

Next, there seems to be a growing consensus among Christians that they are some how getting the short end of the stick because of separation of church and state. The first ammendment to the constitution provides sepearation of church and state for the benefit of all types of religion, including Christianity.

Separation of church and state means the government gives no special treatment to any religion, nor does it discriminate against any religion. This allows for religious liberty - it means that people can practice their faith without persecution and without special treatment.

I don't believe religion should ever be silenced, but in a pluralistic democracy where there are all kinds of religions and beliefs (not to mention people of conscience who are non-believers) neither Christians nor anyone else gets to force their doctrine down the throats of the rest of us simply because they're religious or may be in a majority. In America, everybody is given the freedom to believe or not believe as they choose. This is a major strength of our country, and certainly not a weakness.

The email that I received stated that 89% of Americans are Christians, so this is what should be the mainstream in our schools, learning and everyday lives. I guess that means the opinions of me and over 33 million others (assuming the 89% number given is even correct) just don't count, and we should just shut up and move out of the way. Does anyone else remember why the pilgrims came here in the first place? I seem to remember it having something to do with fleeing religious persecution.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: Ah Meridith, therein lies the sticky wicket. 270 million versus 33 million. Hmmm, sounds like an overwhelming majority to me.

Now move the argument sideways into forced participation in a government health care system. Health is arguably just as important to many people as religion is to others.

Should we let the majority opinion rule in the healthcare debate? Do superior numbers mean anything on any issue in the United States?

Don't take my comments as a barb, I'm only asking out of curiosity. Should majority rule be the law of the land?
Meredith
Meredith
Grand Rapids, MI
23 months ago: No doubt 270 million is a majority, but the difference here is that religion is totally subjective.

This from ReligiousTolerance.org: Prior to 1990, the popularity of Christianity had been stable in the U.S. About 87% of adults identified themselves as Christians. The country then experienced a major change. Significant numbers of American adults began to disaffiliate themselves from Christianity and from other organized religions. By 2008, the percentage of Christians had reached 76% and is believed to be continuing its decline.

I've even seen it reported that Wicca is the fastest growing religion in the U.S. If the Wicca faith were to become the majority, would you take issue with morning rituals and chants of the Wicca doctrine taught in public schools? Even if we do decide to teach the Christian way, which of the reported 35,000 different versions (according to World Christian Encyclopedia) should we teach? See my point? It's totally subjective.

As far as a majority rule within government, how else would you have it? I realize that some would like government completely out of their lives and would prefer no government at all. Personally, I appreciate having a military to protect and serve, driving on paved roads, having the fire and police departments on hand if needed, and even the ample resources available to me at the public library. Within a society not everyone is going to agree all the time, that's a given; however, government is a necessity and the best way to ensure that the public's needs are met is through democracy.

Christians can't have it both ways. If they want the freedom to practice as they see fit, they must afford that same freedom to everyone else. No one gets to win because they're religious, majority or not.

THE RONBOT HUNTER
THE RONBOT HUNTER
23 months ago: You are totally right.

But know that the people that control this country, are trying to destroy our beliefs in GOD and in real religions.

To conquer or control a nation or people, they need to destroy our faith in all that is good in man.

An immoral, unethical, ungodly people are easy to destroy, or control.

We are under attack by the real owners of our country, and they know how to do it.

If we stay united in our freedoms of religion and keep them obeying the constitution, we will survive.

if we permit them to destroy prayer, and our faith. Then we are headed for a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, with a Godless Cult of Greed and Sin, as the only religion that they will allow us to have.

THE RONBOT HUNTER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

http://freedom-school.com/law/prison_tre...

http://freedom-school.com/keating/how-a-...

scotmanster
scotmanster
23 months ago:
The email that I received stated that 89% of Americans are Christians, so this is what should be the mainstream in our schools, learning and everyday lives. I guess that means the opinions of me and over 33 million others (assuming the 89% number given is even correct) just don't count, and we should just shut up and move out of the way. Does anyone else remember why the pilgrims came here in the first place? I seem to remember it having something to do with fleeing religious persecution.

Your opinion would not count if we lived in a country were majority rule dictates us. But that is not the case in the United States.

The 80% figure the email stated I would be willing to bet it is more like 30%.

But I totally agree with the jist of what your saying. The separation of church and state is were the government and religious institutions are kept independent of one another. This is so neither can have an overwhelming influence on the other.

See this is were though I never read the email Christians as a whole are misunderstood sometime purposely and in other instances unintentionally but what I am getting at is if the sender of the email supports the Christian religion then why would they bother talking about other religions that don't effect the point they are trying to make? I would not read much into it is what I am saying.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: The prayer in school issue has been beaten to death but let's put it this way. If you want your kid to pray, you can order him to pray morning, noon, night, and overnight. The only reason zealots want prayer in school is to make other people's kids pray and that's really the crux of the problem.

Your emails says there's 89% Christians but according to religioustolerance.org, the figure is currently at 76% which is high but that's not 76% conservative evangelicals who want prayer in school. That 76% is divided by political ideology (from ultra left to ultra right) and theology with thousands of competing and often contradictory denominations; the only universal agreement they have is how to spell Jesus.

If there was really 76% to 89% evangelical spouting Christians who all believed the same thing with a real god whispering in their ear, there would already be prayer in school, Christian Creationism would be Science 101, and the Constitution would be the Ten Commandments.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
23 months ago: Good Post Meredith! And Mark is right, there are a thousand different Christian sects that all pray differently no doubt. I used to pray in school all of the time. I prayed that the teacher wouldn't call on me, I prayed that I would do well on the quiz. Never worked.

People would probably get upset if I insisted that everyone pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If we look at the Taliban and the rest of the radical Islamic states that insist on Sharia law we can see what would happen if we allowed the intolerant majority to force their beliefs on everyone else.

As for forcing everyone to get health insurance, why not? We force everyone to get car insurance. What is the difference? It is in the best interests of the people. The only way to get costs down is to have a big pool of people that includes those that are healthy. It would be much simpler and cheaper to provide a single payer health care system, but Obama is bending over backward to accommodate the right. If we do nothing the insurance industry will continue to exclude anyone that gets sick and will continue to raise fees.

Is it right to deny health care to 20% of the population and to allow 45,000 people to die each year just because they can't afford the outrageous insurance costs or because they have been denied care by insurance companies they had paid the premiums for? What about their rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Can't have much liberty or happiness when dying in the street.

The constitution was written to protect the rights of the minority not the majority. Religion and Health.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
Content Removed by markbyrn
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: Al,

The auto insurance comparison is faulty because auto insurance is only required if you have a car, and often the reason people don't have cars is because they can't afford a car and/or the insurance that comes with it.

Sad to say, your parroting the the corporate health care talking points memo that the corporate Democrats (inc. Obama) are pawning off as a bogus alternative to the single payer system; if you want the progressive perspective, please see the TYT's video entitled, "Why a Health Insurance Mandate is Terrible"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aa5SYynO...

Also, see It's "Official - Real Healthcare Reform Is Dead" - mandates are simply 'growing the cancer'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E87_bGSGt...

And when that cancer becomes an overnight terminal malignancy, the seething angry voters are going to excise Obama and the Democrats right out of office.
Meredith
Meredith
Grand Rapids, MI
23 months ago: Thanks for your comment, markbyrn. Although health care is off topic here, I understand your reservations about the mandate and am curious. What alternative do you feel there is to a mandate? Without a mandate, how do we keep people from only buying insurance when they get sick? Health insurance only works and is only profitable when there are enough healthy people who are not drawing on the system to balance out those who are ill.
scotmanster
scotmanster
23 months ago: The amount of people without Health Insurance is extremely over exaggerated statistic. They started pushing for Health care reform 10 years ago..the statistics are being propped up financially by the ones pushing for health care reform.
Meredith
Meredith
Grand Rapids, MI
23 months ago: Thanks for your comment. I believe you and I are on the same page and particularly liked the Flying Spaghetti Monster idea - thanks for the laugh!
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
23 months ago: ...What alternative do you feel there is to a mandate?...

To quote Al, "It would be much simpler and cheaper to provide a single payer health care system, but Obama is bending over backward to accommodate the right."

While I'm not inclined to believe there are simple answers to complex problems, Obama is not accommodating the right because they aren't voting for it regardless. Obama is in fact accommodating and bending over for his corporate pay masters - they are most definitely against the singer payer system and/or any public option.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: My reason for bringing health care into this debate is simple.
You don't have faith in prayer, and do not wish to be forced to participate, even though I think it would be of benefit to you.
I do not have faith in your health care plan, and do not wish to be forced to participate, even though you think it would be of benefit to me.
What is the difference?
Meredith
Meredith
Grand Rapids, MI
23 months ago: Thanks for your input, Out of the Box. You may not agree, but I think the difference here is the subjective nature of religion. I sincerely hope this never happens, but as a religious person, if you come down with a life threatening illness, there's no doubt you will pray about it, but I'm also betting you'd be making regularly scheduled visits to the very best doctor you can find.

I personally do not think it's okay that in our country people someone would have to choose between loosing their home and everything they own or the treatment needed to stay alive. I have some personal experience with this with a family member - a child born with a rare heart condition requiring three open heart surgeries before the age of three, and an insurance company that refused to cover the majority of it. The child is now six years old and thankfully doing very well; however, his parents are in debt to the tune of nearly $1 million dollars. They had to give up their home and most everything they owned, and they will still never be clear of the debt.

People have thousands of choices when it comes to religion, but when it comes to cancer, leukemia, or other life threatening illnesses, the choice is often quite plain - seek medical treatment, or die.
Meredith
Meredith
Grand Rapids, MI
23 months ago: One last thought . . . Prayer is free - hospitals, not so much.
scotmanster
scotmanster
23 months ago: We have ways for citizens to survive economic hardships, it is called bankruptcy.
scotmanster
scotmanster
23 months ago: My parents just went through the same thing they were able to retain their home, cars,tractors and toys. They did not lose anything but the debt.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: Meredith

So what you are saying is that I should be oppressed for the benefit of others, and that my freedom to not have government health care is of no consequence. So the fact that my State's rights to public prayer in schools has been hijacked, which are, by the way, State institutions, not Federal institutions, and therefore do not fall under the intent of separation of church and State.

Medicine itself is at least as subjective as religion is. That's why they call it "practicing medicine" and "getting an opinion". I don't trust a morally and financially bankrupt government to administer to my health needs.

I don't feel that it's fair that someone should risk their life savings in a stock market account and have it fall apart. There should be no accidents, and a great big fluffy safety net for everyone.

You are correct that separation of church and state prohibits the United States Government from showing favoritism to any particular religious group or belief. How does this have anything to do with the individual states? In my state, we have prayer in schools regularly, no one complains, and things work out just fine.

Be that as it may, we still have a few pretty bad schools. So, using our school system as a test group, I would say the e-mail was wrong, and was just trying to stir up discontent. Our problems in the US go way beyond allowing prayer in schools.
Meredith
Meredith
Grand Rapids, MI
23 months ago: Okay, Out of the Box. I hear you. I respectfully disagree, however, that medicine is as subjective as religion. Give me a petri dish filled with staphylococcus bacteria and I can provide you conclusive proof that penicillin will kill it. You can't prove that prayer, no matter which way you choose to do it, will do the same.

No doubt you see God working in your life - that's wonderful, and this is proof enough for you. It's not something, however, that can be hypothesized, tested and proven. Yes, we are still learning when it comes to medicine, but there is also a great deal we absolutely do know.

I think that I'm going to bow out of the whole healthcare debate as I don't think either one of us is going to be swayed. Yes, I have strong opinions, but I'm sure you do as well.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: Meredith

Thank you so much for your civilized response. It's refreshing to have someone who can disagree with my beliefs and still validate them graciously. You are the kind of person I would love to have a discussion with, You are secure enough in your own beliefs not to have to dismantle mine to feel yours are more valid. Hats off to you, Ma'am.
Meredith
Meredith
Grand Rapids, MI
23 months ago: Thanks for making me think, Out of the Box. It was fun!
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
23 months ago: Good responses Meredith. You are right that we are getting off topic with health Care. My point was that one of the main purposes of having government and our Constitution is to help the minorities and the politically weak and helpless. One of the main reasons many of the people first came to the country was to escape religious persecution, and the founders wanted the religious minorities to be free of religious oppression from the religious majorities. I think Health care is similar, in that those who can't afford it are a minority, and their wellbeing is a responsibility of the government, and I think is protected by the Constitution.
I agree with Mark that single payer would be better and I am hoping that the Health Care Bill will have a provision that will allow states to enact single payer systems. (That provision was in the House Bill), Then when other States saw how the single payer states were saving twice as much money, there would be pressure to nationalize the single payer system. That is how it came to be in Canada.
Obama thought Single payer was not feasible because he wanted to work within the existing system and because he wanted it to a bipartisan bill. Now that it is clear that the Repubs would fight any reform it would have been good to start over and go back to Single payer, but it is too late in the game. Once we have something on the books it can be revised, but with no reform it will be dead for another 10-20 years.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
23 months ago: altruist

I see that you have changed your tack. Before now, your argument was that the overwhelming majority of people in the U.S. want single payer health care, so it should be single payer, regardless of what the minority of those opposing single payer wants. Superior numbers on your side makes you right, turns into prpotect the minorities when the numbers shift the other way. Hmmm.

scotmanster
scotmanster
23 months ago: "Obama thought Single payer was not feasible because he wanted to work within the existing system and because he wanted it to a bipartisan bill. Now that it is clear that the Repubs would fight any reform it would have been good to start over and go back to Single payer, but it is too late in the game. Once we have something on the books it can be revised, but with no reform it will be dead for another 10-20 years."

That is right and to get it pushed through Obama is playing Chicago style street thug politics to get it done. Two thumbs up to you and your constituents Al for going along with bi-partisanship. I hope you sleep well at night and can look at yourself in the mirror ten years down the road when we see the ill effects of your rushed legislation of this crooked Health Care Reform. Hell your actions will be a direct result of thousands of people suffering in poverty and dying at your own hand..well atleast that is what you told me when I didn't agree with your health reform plan..
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
23 months ago: Scott I am curious how you can possibly think that giving an additional 31 million people health care, and regulating insurance companies so they can no longer deny service to the sick will result in More people suffering and dying in the street?

We know that 45,000 people die each year because they don't have health care. My feelings are that Any plan would be better than doing nothing and if there are flaws we can fix them later.

We should all be writing our Congressmen to pressure them to do cost benefit analysis every few years to use the most efficient methods and bring costs down.
scotmanster
scotmanster
23 months ago: The problem Al is what is in the legislation. They said we would have full oversight but what did we get in return? Why would you support legislation when you don't even know what is in the details. Is not that considered blind faith?

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.