The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Government-Forbidden Prayer

Text Size

As a not particularly religious Jew, I have always leaned toward the cautious side when it comes to prayer in public/government facilities. But my caution is against government requiring or imposing prayer on people who do, or even worse who must, be at that particular place at that particular time.

Government establishment of religion is one thing, and it must not be permitted. Government prevention of the free expression of someone's faith, even if in a public place, cannot be tolerated.

And thus I was very happy to see that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an outrageous ruling by a lower court which would have prevented Angela Hildenbrand, the valedictorian of her high school, from saying "God" or encouraging the audience to join her in prayer.

Somewhat sickening to me -- and I say this as an atheist -- is that the suit was filed on behalf of another student who was alleging that the school was thus compelling government-sponsored prayer.

More sickening to me was that a judge would issue an injuction saying that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. In other words, this judge decided to trump Ms. Hildenbrand First Amendment rights based on the idea that a graduating student speaking in her own words was effectively an agent of the government illegally forcing religion on the audience.

I am not offended when religious people express their own faith -- as long as their faith doesn't require my conversion or my death. When has America become so hyper-sensitive about religion that we can't hear a high school student tell us what she values in her own life?

It's one thing to object to government establishing religion. It's another thing entirely -- and just as objectionable -- for government to forbid it.

View all comments (16) | Leave a comment

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.5.11 @ 6:57PM

That's perfectly fine as long as you're consistent, and would support a valedictorian who wanted to talk about Scientology and invite people to join her in a prayer to Xenu ... or a valedictorian who wanted to talk about Wicca and invite people to join her in a meditation on the Goddess Within Us All ... or a valedictorian who wanted to talk about how her faith in satanism is misunderstood and ...

You can forbid one, or forbid all, but as soon as government says that one is okay and others are not then you're over the line into establishment of religion territory.

Ross Kaminsky| 6.5.11 @ 7:31PM

I agree with you. It should all be tolerated as long as it's not managed by employees of the government and as long as the particular speech does not include any call to violence.

L A Stich| 6.5.11 @ 7:55PM

When has America become so hyper-sensitive about religion that we can't hear a high school student tell us what she values in her own life?

The hyper-sensitivity began around 5 years ago (maybe a bit more). The Muslims and atheists are particularly good at running that play; I'm surprised that a Fed judge swallowed their line.

On the other hand, the 5th Circuit proved, once again, that they know up from down very well, indeed.

Is that "sensitivity" another sign of the 'chickification' of the US?

Paul McGrath| 6.5.11 @ 8:04PM

If a valedictorian were to cite a Muslim proverb or Hindu saying--or better yet, an American Indian prayer--this would never have been an issue. It is only Christianity which is under assault.

But I'm a bit off point. Mr. Kaminsky's argument is valid: the first amendment is there to prevent government from establishing a religion; not to prevent religious discussion in any public discourse.

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.5.11 @ 9:26PM

If a valedictorian were to cite a Muslim proverb or Hindu saying--or better yet, an American Indian prayer--this would never have been an issue. It is only Christianity which is under assault.

Clearly true. Nobody at all would be offended by a valedictorian reading from the Koran, talking about what a great and peaceful guy Mohammed was, and asking everyone to turn to face Mecca, bow their heads, and offer a prayer to Allah. You'd be cool with that, right?

Paul McGrath| 6.6.11 @ 2:15PM

No, I would not be "cool" with that. Neither would I be "cool" with some Christian zealot haranguing me from the pulpit to turn to God or be damned to hell. Look, the girl wanted to recite a short prayer. I think we can all be gracious enough to allow a person a tasteful expression of their faith, whatever it might be.

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.5.11 @ 8:35PM

She earned that right to speak as Valedictorian; it is her dime and her time slot. The problem with this politically correct crap is that every other clown who did not earn this honor thinks they should have equal time.

Qwer Tyuiop| 6.5.11 @ 9:42PM

Exactly. If she wanted to talk about how misunderstood Satanism really is, and invite everyone to join her in a prayer to Lucifer, that would be cool, right? Or the Koran/Mohammad thing, inviting everyone to face Mecca and pray to Allah? They've earned a right to say whatever they want to that captive audience of proud parents who just want to see their kids grab hold of that diploma, and if it makes some of the parents uncomfortable well it would be nothing but politically correct crap to try to stop them.

Many schools require valedictorians to submit their speeches for approval. Pure PC crap! Sometimes the audience needs to be shocked out of their stodgy old views. If someone has earned a higher GPA than everyone else that gives them the right to make anyone uncomfortable that they want to make uncomfortable. It's not just about religion. If they want to spend their ten minutes talking about their insights into sexual orientation, or the plight of the Palestinians, of what a hero Che Guevara was, or how religion really is the opiate of the masses, or whatever, they've earned that right.

And every parent waiting to see their kid walk across the stage should just sit there and listen ... because they may think they know a little more about life than the eighteen year old on the stage, but the eighteen year old on the stage knows better. And if you give them the freedom to say whatever they want, they'll make sure you know it.

Jack B| 6.6.11 @ 1:08AM

Speaking of PC claptrap, add the objection from some quarters to even having a valedictorian honor at all. The reason? That all important self-esteem mantra. Our society, after making it 'cool' to make up your own prescription for laziness, has decided that if you chose to be a lazy fool, you should NEVER have to confront that by seeing others succeed where you CHOSE to fail.

newrouter| 6.5.11 @ 8:52PM

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Greta| 6.5.11 @ 10:51PM

It is not only the mention of religion by the name of God in a prayer, but in the total distortion of much of what is taught across the board where the PC crowd try to remake history to avoid any mention or involvment with religion. In essence what the government is doing is mandating the religion of atheism as did the socilaist in the USSR. They had to stamp out all forms of Christianity for the god of the socialist is big central government. All rights do not come from the Creator, but from the state. The simple fact is that America was founded as a Judeo Christian country and we can all thank God for that. It meant that we could have a country where all our rights come from our Creator and not the state. The COUNTRY in fact is ONE NATION UNDER GOD AND IN WHOM WE PLACE OUR TRUST. The government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. The government is supposed to be our servant. The states are to decide what power the federal government has, not the other way around. People are supposed to take care of other people, not the government, especially the central government.

FDR threatened the Supreme Court with Packing if they did not reverse their constitutional rulings on things like social security and in allowing him to get away with that, we have gone down hill since. LBJ and Obama are riding on these coat tales of illegal rulings under threat.

All of this started when we allowed the courts to use a letter from President Jefferson to lie about the religious clause as some form of separation of church and state. It is in fact a wall between our government setting up any religion as happened in England, and most especially, not setting up atheism as the state relegion. Each time the court finds ways to distort relatively simple language, it creates another lie.

Richard| 6.6.11 @ 9:59AM

Have any of you ever visited the Supreme Court building and seen all of the religious figures and the 10 commandments, etc. adorning that building? This whole argument is ridiculous. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about the "separation of church and state". Prayer in the public schools or recognition of our chrisitian heritage is only viewed as a threat to socialists/marxists/communists.

Pelligrino| 6.6.11 @ 11:27AM

Richard, you are correct. That is how the entryway and other parts of that Supreme Court building appear. The same for statehouses and many heritage landmarks in our nation that serve as government buildings.

Those that placed these faith remembrances in these prominent places did so for valid and real reasons.

I give these public displays in prominent places about another 7-9 years maximum. Those Christian pieces of history, literature, or art will be removed, one by one. "Archived" somewhere forever, definitively 'out of view.' Perhaps somehow lost?

The intent is that they will be forgotten. Removed physically AND from our consciousness.

It works. Look at Mr. Kaminsky's life.

Autoacct628| 6.6.11 @ 10:01AM

It is continually amazing to me that people who have no grasp or control over their own lives seem compelled to tell me how I can or cannot live mine. As my grand-pappy used to say, "The things you see when you are out without your gun!"

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.6.11 @ 10:49AM

I think your grandfather "jumped the fence" sometime back in my ancestry.

Essential Saltes| 6.6.11 @ 4:42PM

Please note that the valedictorian was not involved in the initial lawsuit in any way. In fact, the valedictorian's attempt to intervene in the case was denied by the appeals court. The lawsuit was about prayer organized by the school. In the Appeals Court ruling (http://texaslegislativeupdate.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mvisd-5ccoa-ruling.pdf) it notes that the school has removed the 'invocation' and 'benediction' from the graduation program. That's what the fight was really about, not the valedictory speech.