I grew up with public school prayer and my fourth grade tyrant, Mrs. Earing, not only made us pray daily but also made us sing Faith of Our Fathers every Friday morning (though we never included the original verse praising the Virgin). A choir we were not. I really dislike that hymn. Best I can remember the morning sequence was a Scripture verse, prayer, and the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a strange conviction to develop at fourth grade, some of it doubtlessly owing to my dislike of Mrs. Earing and her hymn, but I knew it was wrong.
I have always liked the so-called Lemon Test, arising from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). Any practice within a public school or a state facility must have a secular purpose, must neither advance nor inhibit religion as its primary effect, and must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion. When it comes to state-sponsored religious observance, I’m against it.
So we move to my daughter’s recent high school graduation, a huge class of three hundred and forty some seniors, held in a large Baptist church auditorium. It was the only space available in our school district that had any promise of actually accommodating the anticipated audience. Students were restricted to eight tickets for family members. After both sets of grandparents, a younger sibling, my wife and I, we had one left for a family friend who wanted to tag along. (A friend indeed is a friend attending a high school graduation.)
Last year Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to stop Wisconsin’s Elmbrook School District from holding its high school graduation ceremonies at local church. Americans United argued that holding a public ceremony in a space dedicated to Christian observances was “unfair to non-Christian members of the student body.” “Not fair” is what the press reported, but I gather it actually involved something of the Lemon Test, a bit of a stretch, really.
The issue for the Wisconsin school board—which wasn’t an issue until Americans United stepped in—was finding everybody a place to sit, as in our community. In a context of this sort, a place is a place, and the public institutions sponsoring community events ought to be allowed to use a private building, even a church facility, made available for a community (which is to say, a tax-payer) event if it provides the best space for group of tax-payers to watch their children graduate high school. Besides, it if means the difference between getting eight tickets or only seven, I will gladly sit in any strange place I am put.
I have been unable to find out how Americans United for Separation of Church and State made out in their case. Had I known, though, that prayer would be featured at my daughter’s graduation—the sixth I’ve attended in my parental career—I think I might have cheered them on without reservation.
We endured two prayers. What? Yes, that’s the word I will use, and yes, the people in the auditorium mostly said “amen” in the right place and, yes, some did it with unfeigned enthusiasm, and, sure, so far as I can tell the Republic has not shattered. But it wasn’t the place, and it wasn’t the time, and even if I wasn’t offended I was uncomfortable and I felt bad for anyone who might have been both.
The outreach pastor of the Baptist congregation brought greetings to the gathered parents and friends. He explained that this Baptist congregation was delighted to make the hall available for any use by any group that did not contravene the congregation’s commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. On behalf of the congregation he congratulated the students and their parents.
And then, “Now, let’s pause for a moment of prayer.” Whereupon he proceeded to pray for most everything related to the graduation, concluding the prayerful wish Jesus Christ would personally guide each student to a future of faith and success. This for a student body which included kids who are Hindu and Muslim.
A bit later the class valedictorian took it upon herself to offer another prayer, much along the same line with much the same sentiment.
The valedictorian I was told was exercising her right to free speech. And, yes, she did. Right up to the prayer. Her right to free speech certainly included the right to say that faith in Christ contributed to her academic success, motivating her to her best effort; that her Christian faith will unquestionably figure into her post-high school future and will carry her through all her coming adult years. I pray it does.
And she would have been equally free to say it was her personal prayer that everyone come to discover for themselves what she had found in Christ. That I think is a fair thing for anyone to say. As an opinion in the marketplace, it is free speech, and why not? I have sat through worse valedictorians, including the one who attributed his academic awakening to the writings of Ayn Rand. As for the pastor, well, maybe he just doesn’t know how to conclude any talk without a prayer at the end, but that is still no excuse.
I don’t want to see Christians—or people of any religion—concede ground in the public square. And I certainly do not want to see Americans banning Muslim scarves, WWJD buttons, crosses, or yamulkas. Let it all flow and mix, I say. But when we were summoned to prayer, a line got crossed.
I’m not likely to call down the wrath of Americans United; at lot of what they do is silly and frivolous. But I would not have minded a little Christian discretion, some greater discernment on when prayer may or may not be properly invoked.
June 10th, 2010 | 9:28 am
It depends. If the pastor was invited to speak as a pastor, violation of the lemon test. If he was invited to give brief remarks as the host of the graduation, not a violation. If the valedictorian was giving a valedictory speech, not a violation. If she was explicitly giving a valedictory prayer, violation. What matters is not the content of the speakers speech, but the relationship that the government had in sanctioning the speaker. If it was sanctioned *as prayer* probably illegal. If it was sanctioned as a speech and the speaker threw in a prayer, not a violation. Although there are exceptions; legislative sessions beginning with prayer is legal. As are military chaplins. Lee v. Weisman is the more important precedent in this case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v._Weisman#Decision Especially since it directly deals with school graduation ceremonies.
That being said, I would say that it is certainly a rude thing to do, especially such a sectarian appeal.
June 10th, 2010 | 10:05 am
Education is inescapably a religious activity. The problem here is that the gods of the government school are different than those of the valedictorian.
June 10th, 2010 | 10:23 am
Give me a break. This is the First Things blog right?
You like the Lemon test? You are alone, or nearly so, except among those, like Americans United, bent on using it as a club to batter down every last vestige of religious expression in the American public square. The Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence, based on the Lemon test, is an incoherent, contradictory mess. If by “law” we mean “meaningful rules for guiding conduct,” Lemon is almost the exact opposite of law. Except in a very few clear cases at the margins, the Lemon test practically invites judges to “make it up as they go.”
So there were a couple of Hindus and Muslims in the crowd of over 2,000 Christians. They were not damaged in the least by the prayers. Perhaps they were even edified. You want to silence the majority’s religious expression to avoid giving even the slightest unintended offense to this tiny minority? Shame on you. This is the First Things blog right?
I am sorry you had to endure your fourth grade tyrant. Maybe you are happier now that traditional religious expression has been all but eradicated from our public schools and replaced with relativism. Ethics cannot tolerate a vacuum. If we throw the traditional out, the vacuum will surely be filled.
June 10th, 2010 | 1:27 pm
At my evangelical junior high, we sang “Faith of our Fathers,” without the second verse about Mary’s prayers, every Reformation Day. Now that I know about that verse, I can barely sing the hymn without cracking up at the irony.
June 10th, 2010 | 4:02 pm
Be thankful you had a place for your child to graduate. In time, there won’t be any place available because one person might be upset.
Most of us learned that you cannot please everyone all the time. You, on the other hand, haven’t learned a thing.
June 10th, 2010 | 6:18 pm
The analysis of this situation as it exists under the Lemon case is civil and rational. But now suppose there is a large graduating class from a Baptist school that needs additional space to hold a graduation. I suppose there would be no objection if the local public school as a good neighbor offered its facilities otherwise available to the public for that purpose. Surely there would be no problem (would there?) if a minister offered a prayer, made an address that lauded the religious training that the graduates received and urged them to lead lives of faith and rectitude.
Would this be an excessive entanglement between government and religion?
June 10th, 2010 | 9:42 pm
“Give me a break. This is the First Things blog right?” Thanks Barry.
I am watching in distressed amazement as Western, including notably US, culture performs self-vivisection. Still, the valedictorian uttered a prayer in closing her speech. Maybe the kids are onto something. Let’s hope they aren’t suppressed by the Christians.
June 11th, 2010 | 12:29 am
I can’t help but think that the general tenor of (most of) the responses to this post would have been very different if the graduation had been held at a mosque, with a couple of prayers offered up to Allah. Or if it had been held at a Hindu Temple, with the prayers offered up to Shiva, or if, etc. No doubt, as Barry Arrington says, “a couple of Hindus and Muslims in the crowd of over 2,000 Christians … were not damaged in the least by the prayers,” but is it really so hard to see Andrew’s point, “that it is certainly a rude thing to do, especially such a sectarian appeal.” I think that’s exactly what Russell Saltzman was getting at. At some point, it seems to me, the Golden Rule should kick in.
June 11th, 2010 | 8:06 am
Yes, JB in CA has it right. That exactly is what I was getting at. St. Paul says be prepared to give a “quiet” defense of the hope that is ours. In-your-face prayer, rudely imposed, doesn’t qualify.
June 11th, 2010 | 10:30 am
No, Mr. Satlzman, I beg to differ. If you simply meant Christians should be more sensitive in their dealings with persons of other religions, then you failed to convey that message. You actually wrote that Christians should be compelled by law to remain silent in the public square. That your post is on the FT blog continues to astound me.
June 11th, 2010 | 10:31 am
My snap judgment is that if the valedictorian wants to pray, that is her prerogative. Good for her for continuing to find importance in her faith.
The pastor probably saw an opportunity to pray with people who may never otherwise have heard a prayer. He’s a minister, that’s his job. I support him. Whether or not he “should have”, I don’t really care.
I’ll never be opposed to Christian prayer in any forum or context. I honestly don’t care if it is not politically correct.
My understanding of our country’s founding intent is that the government should not force a specific religion, but they should also not impede it. I’ think they’ve dong a fantastic job lately of doing everything they can to impede and it is our job as Christians to continue to attempt to get the Word of God back out to the masses. They sure need it!
This should be one of our First Things.
I also don’t feel too bad if this commentary offends Muslims and Hindus (I doubt any are reading this blog). I don’t accept their “religion” as an okay alternative to Christianity and I’m not interested in being worldly enough to accommodate them. When I die and stand in judgment, I don’t think Jesus will get on my case for not being politically correct regarding non-Christians at high school graduations.
June 11th, 2010 | 12:00 pm
In our world today our battle should be against so many things, but a high school senior praying publicly is not it. A Baptist minister praying in his own church is not. Faith is important and a large part of what got the student to where she is to date is a direct result of that faith. GOOD FOR HER.
Our founding fathers created a beautiful document that allows us to all worship freely, but it did not ban public displays if faith. Jewish Christian values are reflected in our laws, so why not on our lips.
As for displays of public faith… I tolerate public chantings about football teams and etc. with endless nausea. I DON’T CARE NOR WILL I EVER. I have filed no complaints, but most times would like to.
As for my Catholic Christian views, had the student been Muslim, I would appreciated her exercising her faith without feeling the need to agree or disagree with her. Even though, I strongly disagree. I know my Lord and Master.
Your discomfort is with your own uncertainty about your faith. If I were you, I would deal with that before it is too late.
If you don’t want to pray, don’t, just roll your eyes and cough as so many do, but get over yourself in the process.
June 11th, 2010 | 3:27 pm
The problem with prayers at public events is simply, to whom exactly are we talking? Prayer is a private thing unless believers are gathered– families around the dinner table or betime, congregations in worship, or Christian friends coming together for some purpose or responding to some need. Otherwise, the prayer (which is by definition talking to God) simply becomes making a speech to everyone under the guise of a prayer. The prayer becomes about the fact of the prayer rather than something addressed to God. It is all envelope and no letter. There is no need for prayer to be aloud apart from leading people in worship at home or at church. What can you say to God in a giant auditorium full of people that you can’t say to Him silently? Why do you have to pray in front of everybody unless they’re gathered for worship? Prayers at civic events are generally as pointless and annoying (because they aren’t talking to God on behalf of the people gathered in faith, they’re talking to the people) as prayers in which people share news, like when everyone can offer a petition and someone says “please be with my neighbor’s close friend who was driving into town last night and got into a bad accident and nearly lost her life…” and everyone is hearing about this for the first time and thus not actually praying about it. Not being God, I don’t want to be prayed at.
June 12th, 2010 | 12:39 am
And God would say “please don’t pray to me if you are in a public forum.” ?
Ridiculous.
I never thought I’d have to have a debate like this on a blog like First Things.
It’s like people are falling over themselves to dispute religion on here to make it more acceptable to the world. Whatever. I have plenty of other blogs to read. See ya.
June 13th, 2010 | 10:32 am
I stumbled across this site when searching if prayer was legal at graduations. My high school held it’s graduation Friday and was called to prayer twice, and each was title the invocation and benediction. I wasn’t surprised as it happens every year and something similar had happened to another local school.
At their school they have multiple children who are religions other than Christian and were still called to prayer despite the fact that it wasn’t right.
I, as an atheist, was a bit taken back and this proved to me just more to the slightest as why I made my decision to be one.
Many of you who have posted above me have stated that you didn’t care about the feelings of the others as you don’t believe in their religion.
Whether you do or do not is not the problem. The problem is as Americans they have the exact same rights as you. You’re no better than they are nor do you have more rights.
June 13th, 2010 | 3:41 pm
JDN, you seem to think the United States Constitution gives you the right never to feel uncomfortable when the majority express themselves in religious terms at public events. Let me undeceive you. It does not.
I continue to be astounded that this post is on the FT blog. I would have sooner thought that Richard Dawkins would allow a six-day young earther a forum on his website. That spinning sound you hear is RJN turning in his grave.
June 13th, 2010 | 11:46 pm
So are you saying that if I wanted to I could go to a public event and make a speech about how religion is a waste of time and you wouldn’t complain about it to your government and claim it was against your rights?
June 14th, 2010 | 6:08 pm
JDN, if you have the floor you can whatever you want about religion. I do not have a right to be shielded from viewpoints with which I disagree or even offend me deeply. Neither do you.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact