Yeah, it’s a sticky one, I admit. I wouldn’t be offended by the word, because my reading of the Constitution suggests that The State (in this case represented by the teachers) must not endorse a specific religion, or require citizens to have a religion at all, but that they must also allow for the free exercise of all religions. I don’t think it says, as has been the fashion of late, that The State has to pretend that no one is religious, or to ban the free exercise of religion in the classroom, or even that the teachers as individuals must not suggest that they themselves are religious. I don’t see that either The State or Schools are required to provide a religion free zone, in other words. Just that they can’t pick sides or require their students to pick sides.
I think avoiding all sacred music during choir concerts, for example, is obtuse.
So I’d be thrilled with your example, and satisfied with mine, I guess.
Just curious, because my kid is in choir for the first time this year, and he’s not pleased about the amount of sacred music they do, but we tell him it pretty much goes with the territory. In the informational materials they specified that such music was an integral part of the choral literature, but that they were not advocating religion or any particular religion.
I had heard of grade schools doing “winter festivals” instead of more traditional “Christmas” concerts, but wasn’t sure if that is what you intended.
Not in Illinois, but here’s one case in Michigan. It’s enough of a widespread issue that the American Choral Directors Association has a lengthy position statement on the matter. And while I can’t access the whole article, the googleblurb for this link to the Music Educators Journal article suggests that it’s an update on an issue that’s been debated since the seventies: “Sacred Music in the Schools: An Update Since MEJ published “Can We Still Sing Christmas Carols in Public Schools?” in its Novem- ber 1976 issue, …” Here, fifth hit down.
It’s been suggested at least in Illinois, at schools I have attended and at schools my son has attended. When I was in high school, our choir director deliberated and told us basically what you told your son, which is in line with the ACDA guidelines: “Look, the best choral music out there was written by guys funded by churches! If we avoid all sacred music, we’re stuck doing nothing but Beatles medleys and Sondheim. We’re not worshiping, we’re singing, so get over it.”
In my son’s school, again after deliberation within the department, they chose to add a few Jewish songs and one terrible monstrosity (I think written by the choir director) about Kwanzaa to the concert and avoid the issue that way.
I went to a public grammar school and graduated from a public high school. The choirs I was on would mix secular and religious songs into the Christmas program (and, yes, it was called a Christmas program back in the non-PC dark ages of the 70’s and early 80’s). I loved singing Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus as well as a Hebrew song (it wasn’t the Dreidel song. I can’t remember the name but it still runs through my head).
I’d hate for some of the most beautiful music ever made to be eliminated from public school choirs and orchestras because it has a religious heritage. I don’t speak Italian but the first time I heard Schubert’s Ave Maria when I was 6 I was moved by the beauty of it.
That’s what it means to a great many people, otherwise this law would never have been passed. People can squirm and evade the issue all they like, but this is a victory for the fundies, and it’s purpose is to coerce prayer and intimidate unbelievers. Perhaps it won’t work they way they intended, and that’s good, but that’s what it is for. And yes, the point is coercion, because student can pray if they like already.
America isn’t as far from Iran as people like to think, when it comes to religion. The primary difference is that America’s religious fundamentalism isn’t ( mostly ) written into law, thanks to the seperation of church and state. A principle laws like this are designed to undercut and work around.
Buncha stupid fucks. I hope the students give this law the respect it deserves by doing Firesign Theater routines or something.
It can ONLY be construed as back-door religious bullshit. Desperate and pathetic 11th hour attempts at making everyone else respect their silly beliefs. You’d think they’d be embarrassed.
I think the challenge would be that it has nothing to do with education. It has nothing to do with ANYTHING! Sleeping in class would be more productive.
The evening they overrode the veto, I was at a talk by Trib columnist Eric Zorn. He observed that he was somewhat on the fence over whether he should be upset about this development, or be pleased that the best the fundies can pass is toothless legislation such as this “moment of silence.”
Reminded me of the S.Ct. rulings (vaguely recalled) upholding “In God We Trust” by essentially saying it means next to nothing.
Of the people who contend that it is simply a moment of silence and has nothing to do with prayer, I wonder if they are disingenuously repeating the mantra hoping they will convince someone, or if they actually believe it. I would be interested in learning of any “moment of silence” proposal that could be traced back to a non-believer for entirely non-sectarian or purely educational reasons.
The thing is, I don’t like being told that I HAVE to waste time. It may be deemed as meaningless, but the difference between the “In god We Trust” thing and the moment of silence is that I would have to actually DO something in deference to the Praying People. The money is irritating as all get out, but I don’t have to change my behavior; I use it the same way I’d use non-god money. I hope every student blows the raspberry when this stupidity kicks in.
Dinsdale, where these people normally trip up is in the legislative record regarding the Bill. Previous attempts to do this have been struck when comments during the debates/committee hearings have shown the intent to be religious. Fortunately the type of people that sponsor this type of litigation tend to be very concerned with showing the voters how devout they are, so even though they know they aren’t allowed to put religious language into the bill itself, they jam their speeches full of it.
If this is to be struck, that is my guess as to where a successfully challenge will have to look.
For me I guess it’s more or less grumpy resignation to what’s starting to feel inevitable; the last feeble attempts of the lion to claw his handler, saying, “Well, you might make me be silent, but you can’t make me pray. The moment of silence means nothing if I make it mean nothing, so fucko off. What else you got? Altar cloths in the halls? Great, we can use them when we run out of toilet paper.”
It’s a reluctance to admit we lost, basically, and twisting it into a win by any means necessary.
I don’t have a cite, but I read a comment from one of the legislators that almost all the lobbying he heard in favor of this law came from religious leaders. And yet the moment of silence somehow has NOTHING to do with prayer. Go figure.
I’m not sure why anyone would argue that prayer was not involved, here.
The name of the act is the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act.
The specific text of the law says
Now, I think the law is as dumb as rocks and, as I have already posted, since it claims to prohibit religious exercises and since no one following the law can be judged on whether or not actual prayers are being prayed, there is a very large (if wilted and worm eaten) fig leaf to hide its intent. So I think getting upset over it is silly, but it clearly was intended to promote prayer.
I just figure it will fail miserably and we can ignore it.
And I wouldn’t have a problem with that if teachers wanted to do that for the purpose of setting down. This is different, though. This is just another attempt by some Christians to sneak religion into classrooms with a wink and a nudge. Anyone can say a silent pray anytime they want to, there is no need to legislate this.
If I were a teacher, I’d have class pantomime time for one minute.
I think it comes as a reaction to other people who want to push their brand of religion.
I wonder how many people would feel it’s as inoffensive for teachers suggesting that children don’t pray during a moment of silence. “Children, maybe instead of praying to a god today, think about how much you like money instead.”
Or “Let us all give our good wishes to the Triumph of the Aryan Race” or “Let us spend a few minutes contemplating the Glories of Scientific Socialism” or whatever else a particular person finds really repellant. I expect that most of the people who are looking down on those who find this disturbing are the people who happen to think that praying, especially Christian praying is a good thing; of course it doesn’t bother them that much.
Not everyone is an admirer of either prayer or Christianity.
All these years the world has prepared for their busy day without observing a moment of silence. Now suddenly we need this? They’re so full of shit. I wouldn’t observe it for one second. And I applaud any student who disrupts it.
The next time they try to pass a law like this some brave student should ask if they’re required to think wholesome thoughts during the moment of silence, or if it’s OK if they just think about tits and guns.
Outside of the wackos protesting funerals in the name of their homosexual hating deity or the hate filled ravings of a few demented loons, America is pretty tolerant of people’s beliefs. While the people who crafted this law might have an ulterior motive, as evidenced by their inclusion of the words “silent prayer”, there is no reason that anyone should believe that 1) it will pass a constitutionality test the way it is written or 2) that anyone will be forced to use a moment of silence to pray. You can use that moment of silence to recite pi to as many digits as you can remember or to contemplate the marvels of quantum physics. Personally, I use a moment of silence to think about the list of chores I’ve got lined up for the weekend.
America might be a predominantly Christian country but it is fractured in its religiousness. Our popular culture and language are infused with words and symbols from other faiths (think of the opening sequence from Laverne and Shirley and tell me they weren’t using Yiddish words). Extreme religious views are consistently being shut down; look at the reaction to the Phelps phreaks or the Kansas School Board.
But why do we have to make it about exclusion? Instead of saying, “You cannot pray,” why not say, “Pray, don’t pray, we don’t care. As long as you are behaving yourselves, it’s OK.” I don’t give a rats ass if the local village puts a manger, menorah, Kwanzaa display, crescent moon and a evergreen tree in the local park this December. Hell, throw in a Buddhist prayer wheel and a Jedi knight. We keep hearing that we should celebrate diversity so let’s do it right.
”OK kids. Let’s all take a moment and pretend like we’re trapped in an invisible box or that we’re walking against the wind.”
It’s not about exclusion. It has never been about exclusion. Prayer has never been banned in schools, and if there was ever a suggestion that it would be, I would oppose that law just as much.
And while you don’t give a rats ass about the display, other people do. And it presents you with a choice, of including symbols from absolutely every religion (or non-religion), which would still have legal problems, or including none. What I would like to see the local village do, in a radical celebration of what is one of the founding principles of America, is to establish free speech/display areas, where individuals or groups can display what they wish. If the local church wants a manger scene, they can put one there. If the local temple wants to set up a Menorah, so be it. And if the local Revolutionary Communist Party wants to set up a hammer and sickle, with a talking model of Lenin decrying the influence of religion, then that would be just swell (assuming it does not violate other, no discriminatory, sound control laws, for example).
If people want to witness for their religion, let them do it themselves, and I will defend their right to do it. Just don’t try to use the power of the state to do it, especially in a situation such as school where the children are not allowed to get up and walk away.
