I'm really surprised by the responses on this. Both raise interesting but,
I think, arguable points, and the practice itself can be supported by
observations at least, if not studies, on its contribution to learning.
The first points are Roy's:
> >From my perspective, I believe [that] what the ACLU and the courts have
> tended to state is that it is not only the activity itself which must be
> scrutinized for potential governmental involvement with religion, but what
> the purpose or intent of the said activity is believed to be.
This is the first problem and presents a leap I'm not sure we're justified
in making. Unless the "religious right", or whoever would want to put
religion in schools by so obscure a tactic, should make an explicit
statement of intent, or be shown to have some contingent and nefarious plans
by some other proof, then any speculation we may make about their intentions
will be just that. Otherwise, we will have to accept the act at face value.
> I am not a card-carrying member of the ACLU and often disagree with their
> positions, but can anyone argue that the intent of these laws was not to
> advance religion.
Nor am I, and I do also. In accord with jurisprudence, and the ACLU will
have to perform the same act if they're going to take it to court, the
burden of proof is upon those who accuse, not those who defend. The only
counter proofs would require either mind reading or air tight affidavits
which would be beyond reproach.
> One need to only look at the politicians and groups who support such
> proposals to see where their interest really lies.
There is an alternative explanation. If these groups wish their children to
have time to pray, to practice their beliefs during school time, and are
prevented from doing so in an organized way because of the First Amendment,
then this proposition seems to me to accommodate both sides. No effort is
made to induce or require any children (even those with parents who would
like them to pray) to engage in any religious activity, and nothing is
forced on those children who parents don't want them to pray (even those who
may pray despite their parents wishes) except a few minutes of silence.
Now, if you want to argue that it is somehow oppressive or against someone's
right to ask them to be silent for a few minutes, well, then you may have a
case if you can support it.
> Having been unsuccessful in restoring public prayer to schools...
> ...supporters of prayer turn to moment of silence laws to as a means
> of achieving some sort of victory on the issue.
As well they may: they may have achieved a peaceful solution which satisfies
both sides (or would if separatists were not taking offense from it).
> Courts have said that in order for a moment of silence statute to pass
> constitutional muster, it must not have a religious purpose.
Which, so far as I've heard, these do not. Any 'religious purpose' has to
either be an admitted intent by the makers, or a assumption by the
contenders. The test MUST be
"What is required of the child to do during this time period, and what are
the consequences if s/he doesn't?
Well, so far as I know, nothing is required of the child other than to sit
in silence. Whether they use the time to pray, solve quadratics, think
about the student in the next set, or wonder what's for lunch, it doesn't
seem to make much difference. Any of the children can lie about what they
were doing, and who could say otherwise. Only the Muslims would be telltale
if they pulled out a rug and knelt on it on the floor.
And, wherein does "religious purpose" lie? In the intention of the makers,
in the assumptions of the contenders, in the wording of the law, in the
application by the schools and teachers, or in the practices by the
students?
> We may disagree with that logic,
However, I obviously don't disagree with it. The "Purpose" has to be
explicit or proven, and even then that purpose has demand or require an
application and practice which are clearly religious in nature. And, for
later down the post, we should differentiate between 'religious' (as in
formal, doctrinal beliefs practices) and 'spirituality'.
> ...and I might tend to believe that a moment of silence in and off
> itself is not a gross violation of the First Amendment,
So, why don't you? What reasons, other than suspicions and assumptions,
would lead you to believe that a moment of silence is anything other than a
moment of silence?
> but strict separations do keep our proverbial feet to the fire by their
> efforts to dissuade those who desire to establish religion by any means
> necessary.
Granted and agreed to, but, though this could support your argument, the
burden of proof is still on you 1) to prove the intent of the makers, and 2)
to show that clear and obvious religious practices are being required of
the students.
> I see such cultural warfare as really a battle over symbols rather than
> substance. There are many in our society who lament the loss of these
> public symbols of piety/religiosity and believe that the loss is connected
> to other undesirable trends in our society. They may be correct, though
> there is little empirical evidence to support such a causal link.
> I believe that the solution is not to restore public symbols of piety and
> religion in our public institutions, but rather to grapple with the
tougher
> substantive issues facing our young people and their self-esteem and
values, etc.
I agree - some people may see this loss as a cause for many of our problems,
and, in fact, there may be some truth in what they say (which should not be
construed as implying that there is any truth in what they believe). But,
if they see this as being a part of the problem, then it is not surprising
that they would like to re-introduce it as a part of the solution. That's
fine, so long as they do not require it of any but their own children.
THEY MAY NOT IMPOSE SUCH BELIEFS UPON ANY OTHER CHILD OR ADULT.
In the meantime, yes, let's deal with some of the other perceived causes,
such as Henry and I discussed on family and community. Let's reinforce
these values in the schools, and, to that end, a moments of communal silence
may be an aid.
> As a teacher, I have never believed that it is possible to remove prayer
> from school, at least not as long as tests are given!
Oh, yes, even I have uttered more than a few words to anyone/thing that
might be listening which had the power to effect my grades!
*
And then Yvette follows with:
> The perceived loss of character and morality is just that perceived.
No, it is not just perceived. There have been studies (check the web site
of the Institute for Global Ethics). The losses are (all too) real. The
points that people argue over are the causes and the solutions, but most
people, I think, agree that there are problems.
> We have this belief that it was better in the "old" days.
We are not alone in this. Almost every age has had some form of this
belief, whether they refer to our ancestors, largely mythical "ancients" - I
think that a large part of this is simply remembering our childhoods, when,
as children, we didn't perceive the woes and troubles of the day. Most of
my childhood and family life was bliss, but I lived in a semi-rural area (as
opposed to urban) and was completely oblivious to the McCarthy trials, the
Hollywood witch hunts, the housewives on Valium. Life was good then; I
remember it that way.
> but really when you think about it everything we ask students to do has
> an educational objective.
>
> What is the educational objective of a moment of silence.
Ok, now, there is *at least* one group actually working with kids in NYC (I
believe; I had an article, but have no idea where it is now) which starts
each day with a period of silence. I believe the general results were that
the kids had a chance to settle down, collect and focus themselves, and that
the general school day proceeds much more smoothly and that the children are
more open to learning. I've no doubt that this topic could be researched.
Even if there were no positive educational gain from a minute of silence, I
think that contenders would be hard pressed to explain in what way it is
detrimental.
> Prayer and religious beliefs are a private matter.
They are, and the moment of silence keeps it that way - while still allowing
those who do have private prayers and religious beliefs the time to observe
them.
> I think that is the point of the disagreements even with a generic moment
of silence.
Which point? That they are a private matter?
> I do not believe for one nano second that this moment of silence
> gives any one any "morality".
Neither do I. Is someone maintaining that this will happen?
> And I do resent being told when and where I should be in a reverent state
of
> being.
Hm-m-m, was written anywhere that "the student shall be in reverent state
during this period of silence"? Or, just that the students shall sit in
silence for this length of time?
> Prayer in school as a personal, private experience can not be removed
> because it is integral to the lives of human beings.
Agreed, which is why I think the moment of silence is a workable compromise
or accommodation to this reality,...without infringing on anyone's rights.
> but it is the dictation by a board or principal about when and for
< how long, everyday, each of us should be silent that I disagree with.
Ah, ok; well, this is a completely different point. By extension and
application, then, you must have really hated study halls. Is the silence
you're uncomfortable with, or the authority telling you to be quiet?
I will not protect my rights of freedom from religious oppression by
oppressing those who do have religious beliefs. This would be nothing
better than an inquisition run by secular Humanists.
You can be, believe and do just about anything you want, so long as no one
is hurt by it and you don't oppress others with it.
