Related articles and links |  1 of 2

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men," said Jesus at Matthew 6. "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen." The Supreme Court yesterday also commanded those who pray to do so where no one can hear, but for very different reasons. According to Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 6-3 majority opinion, even when prayer is initiated and led by students, and even when attendance is voluntary, praying over the loudspeaker at a high-school football game "has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship." The pro-prayer argument that such student prayer is a form of free speech rang hollow in the court's ears: "Contrary to the district's repeated assertions that it has adopted a 'hands-off' approach to the pregame invocation, the realities of the situation plainly reveal that its policy involves both perceived and actual endorsement of religion." Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the dissenting opinion, which Justices Scalia and Thomas joined. Stevens's majority decision "bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life," Rehnquist wrote. "Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of 'public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.'" The decision (available in HTML at Findlaw or as a PDF document at the court's official site) makes the front pages of the major newspapers. The New York Times gives a detailed rundown of the ruling and dissent, and leaves comment for the last few paragraphs. Julie Underwood, general counsel of the National School Boards Association, tells the paper, "This decision emphasizes that we don't have prayer at school sponsored events, period." The Los Angeles Times takes a very political tack, comparing Stevens's decision with the brief George W. Bush filed supporting the pregame invocations. The effect is to make it seem like Bush was one of the major players in the school prayer case. For the record, he wasn't. The Times also slantily notes, "The decision halts a movement by Christian legal activists to convert the school prayer issue into one of free speech for students." But when it comes to Christian legal activists, The Washington Post has the best quotes. Gary Bauer tells the paper that the decision "proves that a majority of the court is at war with the religious tradition of America." The American Center for Law and Justice's Jay Alan Sekulow calls the ruling censorship. Overall, the Post focuses on the wider implications of the ruling on school prayer. "The case extended the court's previous prohibition against clergy-led prayers at school graduation ceremonies to student-led prayers at athletic and, presumably, other official school events—at least in cases where the student is chosen in a school-sponsored election," write Edward Walsh and Bill Miller. "The ruling left intact the freedom of students to pray on their own in school, before a meal and at other times. Groups of students also can meet for worship on school grounds, as long as other student clubs are treated similarly. But the ruling is likely to lead to new challenges to school district policies that allow 'moments of silence'" USA Today is, as always, short and to the point, but notes that the decision is the "strongest rejection of prayer in public schools in nearly a decade." Similarly, The Freedom Forum notes, "The decision marked a turning point in the Supreme Court's 40-year struggle to draw the line between church and state in the public school setting. After sending signals that it was ready to allow greater religious involvement in schools, the conservative court on Monday tacked back toward a more separationist approach."

next page... |  1 of 2

share this page

June (Web-only) 2000, Vol. 44