tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (06/06/85)
By now everyone knows about the Supreme Court's ruling on Alabama's school prayer laws. There are, however, some facts that the TV news and most newspapers did not present; I though I'd share some of these. First, the major factor deciding the case was not that prayer is mentioned in the statute, which is what you'd think from most news reports. The justices consenting took into account primarily the legislative history of the legislation. To quote from Justice Stevens' majority opinion, "In applying the purpose test, it is appropriate to ask 'whether government's actual purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion. In this case, the answer to that question is dispositive. For the record not only provides us with an unambiguous affirmative answer, but it also reveals that the enactment of Sec. 16-1-20.1 was not motivated by any clearly secular purpose, indeed, the statute had no secular purpose. "The sponsor of the bill, Senator Donald Holmes, inserted into the legislative record, apparently without dissent, a statement that the legislation was an 'effort to return voluntary prayer' to the public schools. The state did not present evidence of any secular purpose." This suggests that the press has been considerably misled in assuming that the decision affects only legislation involving the word "prayer". It suggests that a statute not containing that word would still be invalid if it were introduced with religious intent, as shown by the record of debate. Thus even those states with "innocuous" moment of silence laws must consider the possibility that they are invalid. Second, the majority opinion delivers a sharp blow to the President without naming him as such. Reagan has been quoted as saying that the First Amendment does not provide "freedom *from* religion, but freedom *of* religion." Justice Stevens explicitly foreswears that doctrine: "Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Mohammedism or Judaism. "But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all." Third, the whole issue of a "moment of silence" needs to be examined in more than a judicial light. No such law should exist anywhere, although they can not be considered unconstitutional. Illegal teacher-led prayer is a commonplace in many schools, particularly in the South. This implies that there are a large number of teachers who are leaning towards leading prayer but refrain from it. The addition of a moment of silence is going to push many of the leaning teachers over the edge into actually leading prayer. As such it does great damage and should be rejected by any state legislature. Unfortunately, many state legislatures, such as Alabama's, could not be more pleased that this is the case. Fourth, the dissenting opinions by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist are so idiotic as to be actually funny. (Justice White's does not appear to be quite as ludicrous.) Burger claims that "The Alabama legislature has no more 'endorsed' religion than a state or the Congress does when it provides for legislative chaplains, or than this Court does when it opens each session with an invocation to God." (As opposed to an invocation to wombats, I suppose.) Yes, Warren, that's right; it is not "respecting an establishment of religion" to give public funds to the support of a minister, in return for his providing religious leadership. Of course it isn't. Sigh. We can only hope that the Court will come to its senses and forbid the use of public funds to hire ministers soon. Rehnquist manages to be even dumber, saying at one point "The [Establishment] Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others." Good enough. Later he says "Nothing in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, properly understood, prohibits any such generalized 'endorsement' of prayer." Can Rehnquist not know that some religious beliefs do not employ "prayer"? This is an extremely glaring contradiction in his stated views, suggesting that in fact they are nothing but post facto reasoning to support his desire for school prayers. Fifth (is anyone really keeping count?), there is one aspect of the case that can only be called bizarre. To quote the NY Times, "A Federal District Judge in Alabama, W. Brevard Hand, upheld the law on the ground that despite the Supreme Court's view to the contrary, the Constitution did not prevent the states from establishing an official religion. Justice Stevens today called the district court opinion 'remarkable'." Pardon me while I go behind the building and scream for a while. There, I feel better now. I would call that clear grounds for Hand's dismissal, wouldn't you? Or perhaps simple execution (on grounds of euthanasia -- the man obviously has a degenerative brain disease) would be preferable. Finally, Jaffree and his children have been harrassed and ostracized by the locals for his insistence that his children not be religiously indoctrinated. Jaffree's attorney, Ronnie Williams, was quoted as saying "I've had other parents call me but they don't want to file suit. They don't want to go through what Mr. Jaffree has gone through." While I personally have little sympathy for such wimpy behavior, I'd like to point out that this provides solid evidence that what school prayer advocates are really after is conformity at all costs. (P.S. I pray considerably more often than most people, and I consider prayer to be a beneficial practice. I am not in any sense opposed to prayer, nor am I an atheist or an agnostic in the normal sense of the words. I am, however, strongly opposed to any attempt by the government to force everyone to believe a particular way, or even to encourage it, even when the beliefs happen to agree with my own.) -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"