Jesus prayed on many occasions–before choosing His apostles, when giving thanks for the bread that represents His broken body and the fruit of the vine which represents His blood, in the garden of Gethsemane before facing the crucifixion, and even on the cross. All of these prayers were in connection with spiritual concepts. But Jesus also taught that it is appropriate to give thanks for physical blessings (as well as seek them). He taught His disciples to ask for their daily food (Matt. 6:11), and He blessed the loaves that fed the five thousand (Matt. 14:19).
So what about praying at a football game? At first thought, prayer seems out of place. After all, this is a sporting event, not a religious one. But, then, eating physical food is not exactly a spiritual activity, either–except for those who eat religiously. If, therefore, someone leads a public prayer to the effect that there might not be severe injuries or that all will conduct themselves in a sportsmanlike fashion, what can the objection be? A public prayer acknowledges that this society was founded on the belief in God. If God deems the prayer frivolous, He will just disregard it.
Oh, but the Supreme Court disagrees. According to Justice Stevens, as reported in Denton Record-Chronicle:
School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community (June 19th, 1A).
Compared to this tripe, Lewis Carroll’s poem, Jabberwocky, makes sense. This statement is nonsense of the highest order. It is lamentably sad that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas must work on a daily basis with those who are influenced more by “political correctness” than by common sense or what the Constitution actually says. America owes a great debt to these three men who are constantly opposed by those who respect law and the Constitution only when it suits them.
Of course, the reaction to the ruling was predictable. The ACLU (Anti-Christian Liberal Union) lauded it. They may usually be found opposing decency and promoting atheism. The June 20th editorial in The Dallas Morning News agreed that “the school’s policy could promote sectarian favoritism” (10A). Columnist Steve Blow felt compelled to agree with the court and warned against listening to anyone who would say otherwise (June 21st, 19A). A local talk-show host also shared the view with the court; only George W. Bush and average Americans seem outraged, although cartoonist Bill DeOre scored a point as he depicted a football player rising up from the huddle to ask the coach on the sidelines: “Coach…is a ‘Hail Mary Pass’ considered a school prayer?”
What about Stevens’ “logic”? He surely cannot be taken seriously. Who walks away from a football game in tears, saying, “I don’t feel like a full member of the political community.” Anyone who did so should be told, “Grow up.” One would think that we are talking here about severe religious, moral, or political persecution. Stevens’ statement can only be regarded as a pretext.
Whenever people have a particular goal in mind, they have a certain agenda to follow. Sometimes they invent ancillary explanations to justify their decisions or behavior. Surely, so weak a justification for the court’s verdict bespeaks a more primary purpose, which is to further remove God from the public view.
Case after case during the past 40 years has left the general public with fewer and fewer “approved” expressions of the affirmation of God in public. Chief Justice William Rehnquist appropriately observed:
Even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the court’s opinion: It bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life.
He is (as he usually is) correct. As more and more religious freedom is lost in this country, the closer we get to having none. Another blow to religious freedom was struck in a little-publicized decision by a federal appeals court, as reported in the Denton Record-Chronicle on May 13th (2A).
It was the Friday before Election Day in 1992 when the Church at Pierce Creek and its pastor, Daniel J. Little, bought a full-page advertisement in two newspapers urging voters to reject Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton because of his positions on abortion, homosexuality and the distribution of condoms in public schools.
The “Christians Beware” ad appeared in USA Today and The Washington Times. …the IRS revoked the church’s tax-exempt status in 1995….
Do Americans realize what is at stake here? It is precisely this kind of free speech that our Constitution is supposed to guarantee. How ironic that tax dollars are used to fund artists that blaspheme God and things sacred to a great portion of society, and the Constitution protects that. But when someone opposes a political candidate, based on his immoral views, suddenly the right of free speech is revoked or penalized.
If the church that paid for these ads loses its tax-exempt status because they said something that the current government frowns upon, what will be the eventual result? Apparently, the government will be able to tell preachers and churches what they can write or distribute. The government can then control religion–just as they once did in the former Soviet Union! Meanwhile, why do Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (who recently called Gov. Bush “Pontius Pilate”) get to speak in churches and support candidates? Are they allowed to do so because they support the “right” candidates? Lawyers for the Church at Pierce Creek argued that the IRS had engaged in selective prosecution, but the three-judge panel said that such an argument was “without merit.” Not only is justice blind; so is injustice.
One would think that Muslims might be among those that were pleased by the “no-prayer” ruling of the Supreme Court, but they too are concerned about where this decision may lead. According to The Dallas Morning News, Muslims feared that “the ruling would cause schools to do away with religious activities altogether” (6A). They see the door open to further prohibitions and infringements upon religious life in America.
Hindus liked the ruling. A spokesman for American Hindus Against Defamation said, “It’s a broader issue than just who you are praying to. We don’t think you should force prayer on anybody.” Oh, please! How is prayer forced on someone? Most of us have attended gatherings where the person leading the prayer was not a Christian as per the Biblical definition. Nobody forced us to pray. We simply listened politely and then continued with what we were doing. Are there actual reports of people becoming psychologically disturbed for life because they heard the words of a bland, nondescript prayer? Of course, people can listen to the vulgar language on South Park or play video games in which people are shot, blown up, and brutalized. None of those things will affect young people, but a prayer might ruin them. Who can believe it?
The argument is made that government must remain neutral and cannot get involved in and sponsor religious activities (they can regulate religious activities, however, by taking away their tax exempt status). In the first place, this government never prohibited God’s name from being used in public. The Declaration of Independence refers to the “Supreme Judge of the world” and “Divine Providence.”
Second, the first amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Unfortunately, the amendment does NOT say that the Supreme Court or the IRS could not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Obviously, there is no intent in the Constitution to ban a public prayer to God at a school function.
Third, did not one of our Presidents say that government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people”? Who owns and regulates the schools–the government or parents? Apparently, according to this “supreme nonsense” ruling, neither the parents, nor the school board has any say-so in public schools. Only the Supreme Court has the right to legislate what may or may not be done. If the school board thinks it is acceptable that a student can lead a public prayer, they are wrong. If the administration thinks it is all right, they have greatly erred. If parents and teachers approve the practice, what do they know? If the vast majority of the people have no objection, why, they simply lack the knowledge of six “justices.”
According to a public opinion poll, the vast majority of Texans thought that student-led prayer was acceptable. When was the last time 82% of people agreed on any issue?
Ironically, the lawsuit was brought by a Mormon and a Catholic family. If either one of these groups were in the majority, they would have kept silent. Has anyone noticed what public life is like in a country dominated by Catholics? Has there ever been religious influence exercised in Utah? This suit filed on their behalf was utter hypocrisy. They ought to be ashamed to climb into bed with secular humanists who would not hesitate to infringe upon their rights, given the opportunity. This lawsuit might have been expected from atheists, but for religious people to have cooperated with a group (ACLU) known for its attempts to destroy ALL public religious influence is unthinkable. While these two families may have won a legal victory, they certainly cannot have endeared themselves to the local community, and thus far there is no law that forces citizens to associate with malcontents.
The following article addresses this issue of so-called encroachment upon the rights of others. It was written for the Denton Record-Chronicle and published on June 9th, partly in response to a letter advocating a moment of silence to be fair to everyone. The title the newspaper gave the column appears below.
There are frequently letters to editors and calls to talk shows in which people complain about public religious displays or having to listen to prayers that invoke the name of God or Jesus.
Many harp about separation of church and state as if that phrase were in our Constitution, but it is not. The intent of the founding fathers was to allow religious freedom–not curtail it.
Some seem almost fanatical in their opposition to the mention of God’s name, or else they pretend that they have been greatly offended by someone praying in the name of Jesus. Whatever happened to graciousness and tolerance?
If a person visits Iran, should he be surprised that the name of Allah is revered and used in public? Would he complain about the Muslim influence in society, and if so, how seriously would his objections be taken that there were Christians who were offended at the constant invoking of Allah’s name?
If a Protestant visits Italy, would he be shocked to discover an enormous amount of Catholic influence there? Would he begin to petition the government to eradicate all public religious symbols because some non-Catholics live there?
Would someone go to Israel and expect the nation to change their religious habits and customs because non-Jews had taken up residence there?
Is it so difficult to respect someone else’s religious beliefs, even if we disagree with them? Before becoming a Christian, this columnist was of the opinion that religion was a rather useless commodity, but it never occurred to him to show disrespect for believers or to complain about public prayers. Even if they were worthless, they were not harming anyone.
We are allegedly living in a tolerant society. Anyone can say (practically) anything. We are free to believe or not believe what we wish about God and Jesus. Yet we seem to be approaching a point where it is actually safer to use the name of God in vain than it is to show reverence and honor to it in public.
Yes, many champion tolerance–except for God, Jesus, and the Bible. Why must the freedom to mention these in public unashamedly be eradicated because there are some Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists among us?
Do we have rule by minority? Can anyone seriously argue that an occasional public reference to God constitutes indoctrination? What segment of society is being forced to believe something against their will? Are houses of worship being filled by those obeying government dictates?
Americans have the freedom to believe and worship (as they choose) or to disbelieve. Those who would deny public expressions of humble acknowledgments of God should put their intolerance aside and adopt some graciousness.
Will society henceforth function on the basis of eliminating what people object to and are offended by? Well, then, secular humanism has been defined as a religion, and evolution is one of its tenets. Christians are offended that the religious doctrine of evolution is a taught in our government schools. The Supreme Court must outlaw this teaching. Our children feel like outsiders and not part of the politically correct community.
Amorality is also a tenet of secular humanism; we and our children are offended by the religious doctrines of homosexuality, abortion, and the endorsement of promiscuous sex among teens. No one should be allowed to push this religion on minorities such as Christians and Muslims. Our children that object to these government-endorsed religious doctrines are mocked and ridiculed when they protest these religious doctrines. They are made to feel like second-class citizens and outsiders. We wish the Supreme Court would stop all this religious influence–especially since they are the ones who defined secular humanism as a religion.