Graduation Prayers And The Fallacy Of Supposed Neutrality
I am writing this piece in response to an article published by The Indianapolis Star on March 11, 2010. The article is attributed to the Associated Press, and is entitled, “Greenwood student sues to stop prayer”. The article reports that Mr. Eric Workman, an 18-year-old senior at Greenwood Highs School in Johnson County where I reside, is suing the school to prevent students from offering a public prayer at the graduation ceremony. Whether to have the prayer as part of graduation was reportedly put to a vote by the seniors of the student body at the beginning of the school year, the result of the vote being overwhelmingly in favor of the prayer. Mr. Workman contends that both the vote and the prayer violate his constitutional rights.
I would like to address some of the specific points presented in this article, and in particular, the quoted statements attributed to both Mr. Workman and his lawyer, ACLU attorney Ken Falk.
“You can’t have a vote whether or not to violate somebody’s constitutional rights,” Falk said. “It just doesn’t work that way.” I would agree with that statement at face value, but in this case, it begs an important question. Just whose constitutional rights are being violated, and how does one measure the constitutional rights of one student against that of another – or in this case, many others? It seems that according to Mr. Falk, Mr. Workman has a constitutional right not only to not pray, either privately or publicly, but also to not have to listen to anyone else pray. On the other hand, it seems that 1000 or more other students do not have the right to pray or otherwise freely express their religion in Mr. Workman’s presence. I find this odd, especially considering Mr. Falk cites the First Amendment as the source of Mr. Workman’s supposed constitutional right. Since the First Amendment deals with freedom of religion and freedom of speech, how is it that Mr. Workman’s freedoms of speech and religious expression are held in higher esteem than that of 1000 other students?
I can assume that the argument would be something to the effect that Mr. Workman is not trying to prohibit anyone from freely exercising his or her religion, but rather trying to prevent his being forced to participate in a religious exercise with which he does not agree. Mr. Falk said of Mr. Workman, “he does not believe that anyone should involuntarily be subjected to prayer and religious beliefs [and that people at the ceremony should not be compelled to take part in a religious exercise].” (The bracketed part of the previous quote comes from the article in The Star and is not directly attributed to Mr. Falk.) I find that a curious position to defend, especially considering that, according to the article, “Workman is currently ranked first in his class and expects to speak at graduation.” Obviously Mr. Workman believes he has the right to freely speak at graduation. Has anyone spoken to him about specifically not espousing his religious beliefs as part of his remarks? I certainly hope so. After all, by his own admission, no one should be involuntarily subjected to religious beliefs.
At this point some readers may be ready to protest. While the article does not specifically state that Mr. Workman is an atheist, the implication is there due to his claim that he should not be involuntarily subjected to “religious beliefs” and should not be “compelled to take part in a religious exercise”. The argument goes that if Workman is an atheist, then how could he possibly make any comments that promote his religious beliefs, since he has none?
This argument is completely fallacious, and yet I hear it frequently presented in cases such as these. The assumption is that atheism is not anti-religious, but rather a-religious. To be more specific, we Christians are to believe that atheists are simply not Christian; they are not anti-Christian. While I certainly accept the possibility that not all atheists are openly hostile toward Christians in a personal way, it simply cannot be logically demonstrated that atheism is a belief system that takes some sort of neutral or void position when it comes to religion. Atheism is every bit as much of a religious belief system as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam. It is neither true nor possible that the atheist believes in nothing. He most certainly believes in something. He believes that there is no God. Depending on the atheist in question, he may believe in something he calls “rationality” or “science”. Unless the atheists among us expect the millions of Christians in this country to concede the non-existence of God as an objective fact, then atheism must be viewed for what it is, a religious (or philosophical, if you prefer the term) position, and not a scientific or legal one.
Yet, we are led to believe by Mr. Falk and others like him that forbidding Christian prayer in public is somehow religion-neutral. This supposed neutrality is a fallacy. However, it is not, as some Christians may believe, killing religious expression in America. No, it is favoring one and only one form of religious expression, atheism, over all others. Jesus, the Cornerstone of Christianity, said, “He who is not with me is against me.” (Luke 11:23) The very nature of the claims of the Bible make neutrality impossible. Atheism is a contrary position to Christianity, not a neutral one. Therefore, the idea that prohibiting one form of religious expression (offering a Christian prayer) in favor of another form of religious expression (not offering the prayer because of unbelief) is somehow fair, neutral, and equitable is bogus. Any high school, school board, court, or legislative body that takes such a position is codifying into law or policy that atheism is preferable to Christianity. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause if there ever was one.
We have a situation brewing here where it is possible that the desired religious expression and speech of 1000 or more students will be abridged in favor of the sensibilities of a single student, or perhaps a few students. Not only that, but in the most bitter of ironies, this same student will be given the very platform the students desiring to pray will be denied. When he has the floor, will he take the opportunity to espouse his belief system? Will he exult in “reason” or “free-thinking”, “science” or “rationality” over the worldview of Christianity? Will he speak of anything he believes at all that is in any way contrary to Christianity (or Hinduism or Islam or any other religion undoubtedly represented in the student body)? If he does, then I submit to you that he becomes the very thing he says he opposes, one who involuntarily subjects others to his religious beliefs. No doubt all the students will be expected sit quietly and politely while he speaks, freely sharing whatever he might wish to say, and yet somehow it is unconstitutional to expect the same courtesy from him. Apparently we now live in a land where it is illegal for some to be opposed or offended, but not others. If so, we have lost our freedoms of speech and religious expression already.
In this instance the religious freedom of the many is being subjected to the personal preferences of the one. We used to have a word for that in America. We called it tyranny, and we hated it with such passion that our forefathers crossed a vast ocean, faced untold hardship and danger in the new world, and took up arms to ultimately free themselves, and us, from it. Will we now stand by idly and silently while lawyers, politicians, and judges seek to subject us to tyranny all over again? I, for one, will not.
No comments yet.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
