Search News


Browse Archives

News

Religious Meets Litigious

November 24, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A group that advocates separation of church and state has filed a lawsuit against South Orange Community College District, in California, for opening many of its official events with Christian prayer.

The suit by Americans United for Separation of Church and State challenges prayer at Saddleback College, one of two institutions in the district. It states that, “for years, the trustees, the chancellor, and the president of Saddleback College have routinely held official prayer at numerous events for college students and faculty, including scholarship ceremonies, graduations, and the Chancellor’s Opening Sessions.” These public prayers, the suit further argues, “are insulting to [the] deeply held religious beliefs of some students"; it also states that these prayers make other students “feel like outsiders because they do not belong to the … preferred faith” of the community college.

Students, faculty and staff at Saddleback have “publicly objected to the District’s prayer practice” for a number of years, the suit states. Instead of changing this divisive policy, the suit alleges, Saddleback’s administration has responded “by making the prayers even more religious and divisive, and by publicly attacking members of minority faiths and non-believers for not sharing the District’s preferred faith" -- Christianity.

This lawsuit, for those offended by the prayers, is a last-ditch effort to have their concerns addressed. Five current faculty members, one alumna and two anonymous current students -- who asked to remain so for fear of retaliation from the college’s administration -- are named as plaintiffs in the suit.

Though the suit refers to a number of alleged actions by Saddleback’s administration that the plaintiffs consider egregious, it highlights one remark by Donald P. Wagner, president of the district’s Board of Trustees. Last year, a lawyer for the plaintiffs had sent letters to the district specifically asking that its officials “refrain from including prayers at future” college functions, asserting their “unconstitutionality.”

Weeks after receiving this note, the suit alleges, Wagner gave a religiously charged invocation -- of which a lengthy excerpt is included below -- to open Saddleback’s annual scholarship ceremony.

“Historically at events such as these we also take the opportunity to offer a moment of thanksgiving to God -- if He exists,” said Wagner, according to a transcript of his remarks included in the suit. “And I’m not here to say that He does. That would be wrong for an elected official, I am told. No matter that America’s founders invoked the name of God, and encouraged and participated in religious ceremonies in government facilities.

"No matter that the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens believe, or they have no objection to religious mention at public gatherings. No, no matter to the special interest group that has contacted this college to pursue its agenda of driving God from the public square. No matter to those too uncertain in the strength of their own views that they cannot abide any mention in public of the divine, and that would prefer instead to censor and silence free speech.

“If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine,” Wagner continued. “The government has no business trying to convince you otherwise. You’re welcome to sit down. We invited you to stand, but no one made you. But if you do believe, I would ask you, personally and not on behalf of the government, to take a moment to thank Him, for the many gifts you believe you have received from Him, including the opportunity to pursue an education in a country explicitly founded on the belief that we are endowed by our Creator with the gift of liberty. If you would, take that moment now, and then if you’re so inclined, say a simple ‘Amen.’ ”

Wagner and other district officials, including Tod A. Burnett, president of Saddleback, were not made available for comment by college officials.

Instead, all requests for comment were directed to David L. Llewellyn Jr., the institution’s lawyer -- who among other personal accolades proudly notes on his Web site that he was once featured on the cover of a California law magazine under the moniker "God’s Lawyer."

Llewellyn did not offer much comment about the suit, but defended the college's actions and had strong words for critics like Americans United.

“Invocations have been part of America since our founding,” he said. “We hope to defend that long-standing American tradition. … Still, I think there’s a general hostility toward religion that groups like Americans United have. They’re part of our general culture, and religions should be accepted for what they add to our culture and not viewed as dangerous.”

Llewellyn did make one concession about an incident specified in the suit.

At the Chancellor’s Opening Session, an event at the beginning of the academic year that gathers students and faculty, a slide show was displayed with the song “God Bless the USA.” The suit states that “the presentation concluded with two images of uniformed service members carrying a flag-draped coffin, with superimposed text reading: Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you. Jesus Christ and the American G.I. One died for your soul, the other died for your freedom.”

“The showing of that video was a mistake,” Llewellyn said. “It was purely an accident. The district wasn’t aware that was in the video, and it was not intended to be an expression of anything other than patriotism.”

Americans United’s lawyers say they are preparing themselves for what they think could be a lengthy legal battle.

“It’s always better to settle matters and not have any unnecessary legal action, but I fear the district wants to make a statement here and drag out this case,” said Richard B. Katskee, assistant legal director at Americans United. “But, honestly, I don’t feel like there is anything radical about this case from our side. The courts have been consistent and clear: Government isn’t supposed to sponsor prayer. This isn’t like having ‘In God We Trust’ on the money, where it’s kind of sitting there. This is a state official doing so.… I suspect some folks will use this case as a rallying cry on their side. It’s always a popular thing to say that a case like ours is silencing Christians from talking about their religion. That’s just not what this is about.”

Karla Westphal, the lead plaintiff in this case, is a mathematics professor at Saddleback and a self-professed atheist. For her, this legal battle has been a long time coming, and has become increasingly personal through the years.

“I sent out an open letter to all administrators, faculty and staff a number of years ago expressing my concern about this,” she said. “I received personal notes both positive and negative. A lot of non-tenured faculty and staff even thanked me for speaking up when they could not. But no one has been ugly to my face yet. Still, I want to be clear, I would be suing even if I were a Christian. It’s not they they’re espousing a religious view I don’t believe in, it’s that they’re espousing one at all. Though, being an atheist, I’m sure, intensifies the emotional aspect of things."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Religious Meets Litigious

  • public prayer
  • Posted by ind2002 at Pace University on November 24, 2009 at 8:45am EST
  • I have always been baffled by the obsession with public prayer, whether within the context of school ceremonies, football games, etc. I fail to comprehend why people who wish to pray cannot do so in their church, or the privacy of their home, or within themselves. Why the need for this type collectivism? I don't want anyone telling me when and why to pray, even if that is someone representing my faith.

  • Freedom of Speech - even for important people
  • Posted by Thomas M. Ratliff , Associate Vice President for Financial Aid at Indiana Wesleyan University on November 24, 2009 at 9:00am EST
  • Every human should be allowed to say whatever they want. Americans are supposed to be free to do so, even if someone else doesn't like it or agree. It is not suppression of other's rights to say something they do not want to hear, it is fundamental to the growth experience we are to have as living beings.

    I commend the college officials for consistently making their stand and speaking what they believe is appropriate in their hearts. May others be so bold as to continue to believe that we are actually free in this country and not enslaved to censorship.

  • I knew I liked Saddleback.
  • Posted by Mike Landry , College of Business and Technology at Northeastern State University on November 24, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • Wow! Not only does Saddleback College have the best jazz station I've ever heard (I listen online), but they have an administration with courage and common sense. There was or is a Western/County music dinner theater kind of thing in Colorado Springs. Each evening before the dinner, one of the cowboys would begin the meal by saying something like: "Before we eat, around here we pray. If you don't pray, that's fine. It won't hurt you." Glad to see Saddleback standing for a tradition deep within Western civilization.

  • Posted by RSP on November 24, 2009 at 9:30am EST
  • If we don't make the effort to understand others, how can we expect them to understand us? I too fail to understand why so many people insist on imposing their views on others in public settings. Those individuals with differing views are forced to listen, they cannot walk away. They are also, in a very real sense, forced to respond in the way that the speaker is wishing them to respond--forced to participate. If they don't, they risk being viewed as an outsider and subject to discrimination (even if that discrimination is subconscious). It's my understanding that the constitution, in part, was designed to protect the minority viewpoint (after all, the majority viewpoint can always protect itself by mob rule can it not?).

  • Let's keep it separate
  • Posted by pg on November 24, 2009 at 9:30am EST
  • I find it interesting that many individuals in the US who criticize theocracies elsewhere have no problem advocating public prayer and occasionally other acts of religious fanaticism. Similarly, women who want personal freedom of choice come up against those whose religion is the driving force behind their opposition (which obviously is no basis for criminal law). In this so-called melting pot where all different races, ethnicities, and faiths reside, why can't religion be kept a personal matter? I too have attended college events where prayer was offered. Public colleges and universities especially, should not allow over zealous religiousoes to turn every event into (christian)church. Let's keep it separate people.

  • equal time?
  • Posted by Dale on November 24, 2009 at 9:45am EST
  • Tradition...tradition....tradition.... I keep hearing this plea for tradtion. Please. We're an educated people. Once upon a time, it was tradition to own slaves and burn witches at the stake. Can't we do better than that?

    Further, I wonder when Saddleback will offer other faiths equal time for public prayer at its santioned events. Wouldn't that be the start of a wonderful new tradition?

  • Public Bullying
  • Posted by Diogenes on November 24, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • Courage? Seems more like bullying. "Hi. I'm your fundamentalist Christian administrator and we are now going to pray to my exclusive god. Sorry about yours. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Native Americans, Atheisits, those who believe that public prayer is hypocisy, and Wiccans: Just shut up. I hold your job in my little Christian hands. You protest, you're fired! Now lets approach our loving Father and his Son and dedicate this secular state meeting to him exclusively. Oh by the way pagans, you shouldn't be intimidated by this. Your religions sucks anyway. Its not even real American. You're all going to Hell anyway so stop whining. My god say so. So get with the program. and put down that damn Constitution. My Bible trumps that too. I'm doing this for your own good!" It takes no courage to dictate to a captive audience. But of course all criticism is dismissed now as "persecution." Persecution, for the American fundamentalist, is defined as anyone standing up to their slander, fear mongering, bigotry, and religious bullying.

  • Um, hello -- does anybody remember the First Amendment?
  • Posted by Don Heller at Penn State on November 24, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • Comment #2: "Every human should be allowed to say whatever they want. Americans are supposed to be free to do so, even if someone else doesn't like it or agree."

    First of all, free speech rights are not absolute - shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or inciting people to riot through speech have long been found by the courts to be unacceptable. Second, the courts have consistently ruled that public agencies - such as Saddleback Community College - have to tread lightly in their use and promotion of religion. The actions reported here tread very closely to the line the courts have delineated in ruling that public agencies not promote religious views. Ultimately, it will be up to a court to decide, but in the meantime it appears that SCC will spend a lot of money defending its actions, money it obviously cannot spare given the budget situation in which California finds itself.

  • Posted by G. Tod Slone on November 24, 2009 at 10:00am EST
  • Bravo to the five brave professors for engaging this lawsuit and to Karla Westphal, in particular! They bring hope to the heart! Students, however, shouldn’t be encouraged to speak anonymously. Instead, they need to be encouraged to “go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways” (Emerson). We cannot maintain a vigorous democracy if far too many citizens dare not speak out in the open. Fear of retaliation is no excuse for cowardice. Anonymity is a cancer that must be eradicated. Its proliferation in higher education is shameful! Human dignity is lost when one speaks under anonymity.

    It is mind-boggling to think that, at a public California college, such religious séances occur during mandatory faculty attendance events. Rather than be “baffled by the obsession with public prayer,” as one anonymous entity stated, we need to stand up and decry it openly! Without separation of church and state, we’ll end up like one of those islamist nations, where butchering women who leave their husbands is the order of the day. Perhaps we’d end up mandating the burka for all atheists! Assoc. VP Ratliff, who praises prayer at public institutions in the name of free speech, ought to give the platform at his institution, immediately after the prayer séance, to one of his ardent critics. Yes, Mr. Ratliff, do you really believe in Free Speech? Or are you too one of those who would subtly crush it at every turn whenever it might be critical of your reign?

    G. Tod Slone, PhD, Unemployed Professor, and Founding Editor (since 1998)
    The American Dissident, a Journal of Literature, Democracy & Dissidence
    A 501 c3 Nonprofit Providing a Forum for Vigorous Debate, Cornerstone of Democracy
    todslone@yahoo.com
    www.theamericandissident.org
    1837 Main St.
    Concord, MA 01742

  • Posted by Sue Donna Moss on November 24, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • Perhaps the solution for all these people who think that it's fair to the rest of us to open events at public institutions with prayer would be to follow them up with an obnoxious, sarcastic three minute lecture from a secular humanist. Maybe the religious wouldn't be so quick to cram their ancient superstitions down our throats react when they discover that turnabout is fair game?

  • Shoe on the other foot
  • Posted by JH on November 24, 2009 at 10:30am EST
  • I always wonder how the "prayer in school" crowd would react if a public school principal or public university president got up at commencement or a similar ceremony and offered an explicitly Muslim or Hindu prayer.

  • justice is a constant struggle
  • Posted by Lisa Alvarez , Professor of English at Irvine Valley College on November 24, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • This is only part of a long story. Check out the coverage in the South Orange County Community College District blog:

    http://dissenttheblog.blogspot.com/

     

  • Posted by Marcus Timbaugh , Assoc. Prof of Economics on November 24, 2009 at 11:15am EST
  • I like prayer. Whether or not you let me do it in public will not stop me from praying for you.

    Do me one favor though. Stop being hypocrites and playing the victim everytime someone prays in public, when your institutions systematically cram your atheistic views down students throats every day. There is an undeniable truth that thoughout most non-religious campuses, it's OK to be of ANY group, so long as it's not Christian. It's time to drop this double standard.

    And to the ACLU: You do not stand for ANYTHING that Rev. Martin Luther King stood for. Anyone who researches this will find the ACLU agenda is in direct opposition to his. I find it quite sad.

  • what's obnoxious or noxious?
  • Posted by bradley bleck , English instructor at Spokane Falls CC on November 24, 2009 at 11:30am EST
  • It never ceases to surprise me that someone might call for allowing equal time to the "obnoxious secular humanist." Why is it that the secular humanist gets the obnoxious tag and not the fundamentalist Christian? Is obnoxious in the eye of the beholder, totally devoid of objectivity? What I think comments of this sort show is that there might be religious freedom in theory, but there is certainly no freedom from being bullied by those who can't follow the dictates of Christ:

    “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Mathew 6 5-6).

    Better though, is the next line, Mathew 6-7,: "And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words." Clearly, many Christians don't heed these words of Christ and try to foist their notions of religiosity on the rest of the citizenry.

  • What the US is and is not
  • Posted by pg on November 24, 2009 at 12:00pm EST
  • The US is not, I repeat, is not a theocracy. There is a separation of church and state. There is freedom of religion and the freedom to choose the religion that meets your personal needs. There is freedom to not be religious at all. If you want prayer in schools, then select a school that has religion as the cornerstone of its existence.

  • You'd Better Hope I Never Get Into A Position Of Power
  • Posted by Charles Darwin , The Original "Going Rogue" Dude at Science on November 24, 2009 at 12:00pm EST
  • Well, Saddleback college, it's nice to hear from you. Things have been a bit boring in the old grave lately, the Bears suck this year, and the Cubs, well, don't get me started.

    So imagine my delight in reading that you adminstrators at a publicy-funded institution of higher education get to decide what color God your good people get to pray to. Good for you!

    When I get Power, I think i will make everyone pray to science.

    You slobbermouthed, brainless, Faux-Noose watching idots are going to join me in hell for this. I can't wait.

  • "prayers" is a plural
  • Posted by MathProf on November 24, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • The Christians who are upset at the opposition to Saddleback's prayer practices are missing an important distinction. Many members of this opposition are not opposed to religion, or the public expression of religion. We are opposed to the privileged position given to one religion -- Christianity -- at the expense of other religions: Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. Atheists and agnostics may be intellectually offended by any prayer invoking God, but members of non-Christian religions are often religiously opposed. It's a Christian sectarian position that Jesus of Nazareth is divine and should be prayed to, or that prayers should be offered in Jesus's name.

    If public -- and publicly supported -- educational institutions act as though they are Christian, non-Christian religious people will go off into their own sectarian institutions, and the country will be divided still further along religious lines. Want to pray at a graduation ceremony? Go ahead. Just don't make me pray in your way.

  • A wise man once said...
  • Posted by Diogenes on November 24, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • Actually Marcus I don't know what's more amusing: your straw man stereotypes or the weakness of the rest of your "argument."

    I tend to follow the teaching of an inspired man who said, "Do not pray in public as the hypocrites do..." You ought to read his book someday instead of slapping people with it.

  • Tired of it all
  • Posted by TT , Observer at CU on November 24, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • I really do see both sides of the issue, but let's get real folks. Just how far are we going to allow PC to dictate our lives. In this issue some speak of tradition, there is nothing wrong with tradition, and by the way I don't think the concept of tradition applies to slavery.

    Bottom line is Saddleback has an average enrollment of 39,000+ students and staff/faculty 2,000+ and 8 people are objecting to the this practice. Stop the world, I want to get off!

  • Sometimes a prayer is not just a prayer....
  • Posted by Hannha , Ex-Adjunked on November 24, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
  • No, non-christians are not going to melt or burst into flames upon hearing a little christian prayer. What's really being debated is a string ball of the following: past (or is it?) capacity of one religion to dictate one's life, that all relgions have some kind of ultimate being, the form of which means a whole lot to many people, that public schools are now demographically diverse (no protests against a catholic prayer in the old Lousianna public schools, a mormon prayer in the old rural Utah pubic school, a hebrew prayer in the old New York State public schools, etc.), new media outreach exposing millions of diverse and critically thinking folks to a simple prayer no one would have thought to protest before, and whether or not a public school is a public forum.

    Some schools have designated certain areas and certain events as "non-public space," leading to encapsulation of certain types of speech; in several high schools and colleges I know of, the "free speech zone" is restricted by the word "zone." People are free to utter racial epithets in one's private home or in a public park,, but not to barge into a public school classroom and shout racist remarks at the teacher or students in the class. In a sports event or graduation, the public is invited in, but certain behaviors and noisemaking are prohibited. To complicate things there is the question of how much a person can avoid being "influenced" by another's freedome of speech or expression (as witnessed by "obscene" billboards and huge crosses one can simply drive by--but can you keep it completely out of sight? Anyone who protested the "harmless children's toy" of bobbing head pygmy dolls with hair bones and monkeys sold in 1930's toy stores were called "spoilers" of children's fun and the manuafacturer's creative freedom. Those who still protest Native American war-like mascots or team names are called "silly" and "petty" --only because Native Americans are still a small and quiet minority. Relatives of the students are invited to a school's game or sporting event; how reasonable is it to expect the non-christians to just tune out or put up with it? What if it were a hebrew or muslim or wiccan or buddhist prayer; would christians be OK to just "go along"?

    I say, keep it simple--no prayers at all at public school functions. The cultural demographics and dynamics that made it easy for such prayers to go unchallenged in decades past have radically changed--for the better, many would say If you read books about humorously "stupid" laws of the past century, you'll discover there really was a practical and serious purpose for making them when they were made. The reverse is also true; drunk driving was not even a misdemeanor when there were only a few cars on unpaved roads; now it is a murderous offense as the number of heavy and fast cars on freeways increased exponentially. To maintain "freedom of expression" in today's American, prayers at public school events should simply be banned.

  • Posted by CL on November 24, 2009 at 3:00pm EST
  • We live in a democracy where the majority rules. If the majority want prayer at an event, then prayer occurs. For those opposed to prayer, don't pray. If you find it offensive, plug your ears. We each have our own beliefs, but remember that religion was the cornerstone of education in this country.

  • Posted by CC Prof at Response to CL on November 24, 2009 at 3:30pm EST
  • CL wrote: "We live in a democracy where the majority rules. If the majority want prayer at an event, then prayer occurs. For those opposed to prayer, don't pray. If you find it offensive, plug your ears. We each have our own beliefs, but remember that religion was the cornerstone of education in this country."

    The Bill of Rights, and other parts of our legal system, specifically limits or constrains majority rule. A majority of Americans could decide that everyone must be Catholic (or agnostic, etc.), but any legislation to that effect would be unconstitutional because of the 1st Amendment. And, it is that amendment which is at the heart of this dispute at Saddleback College. The courts have been fairly clear on these sorts of cases in the recent past, and I don't think that the Saddleback College officials have a prayer of winning this case if it goes to court. The proselytizing in the video mentioned in the article was way beyond what is allowed. The defense that it was a "mistake" is not going to go over well in court.

  • Posted by ProfMan on November 24, 2009 at 3:30pm EST
  • Well said CL.

  • To CL
  • Posted by Jason , Laid off Comp. Adjunct on November 24, 2009 at 3:30pm EST
  • Actually, wer're not a democracy where "the majority" rules. We are a REPUBLIC, where the rights of the minority get protected in the consititution. Slavery would still be legal if a strict majority ruled, and only thosse who thought and acted the same would gain social and legal acceptance (see the Twilight Zone epidose "Number 12 Looks Just Like Me."). The laws against prayer at public school events were always in place, but they were never tested until a minority who had a different point of view prompted the constitutional clause to the media surface. Save the prayers for home or church.

  • Prayer
  • Posted by Don Rucker , Director, High Desert Regional Center at Azusa Pacific University on November 24, 2009 at 6:00pm EST
  • Whenever this debate rages there are a couple of things that are patently overlooked by those on both sides. First, Thomas Jefferson made it clear to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists that the "wall of separation" between the government and religion was for the protection of religion. In fact, that wall was to prevent the establishment of a national religion. It was not intended to prevent prayer anywhere. Also, it was intended by our founders that Christianity was fundamental in the founding of our nation. Finally, when we attempt to secularize everything, we are simply making another statement of faith. By barring prayer we are being forced to accept a certain belief system.

  • Posted by Annoyed PhD on November 24, 2009 at 6:15pm EST
  • LOL at Sue Donna Moss. Referring to Christian beliefs as ancient superstitions? You must have watched Star Wars one too many times. God have mercy on all of us and the BS we have to put up with that flows out of "educated" people's mouths on college campuses. I hope your research is comforting to you in times of need and sadness.

  • prayer?
  • Posted by Jeremiah , professor of history at Northwest-Shoals Community College on November 24, 2009 at 8:15pm EST
  • Consider the words of Yeshua ha Notzri (Jesus, to all you who honor the Latin): "When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites,who love to stand and pray on street corners and in public so that others may se them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your father who sees in secret, will repay you. Do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them. Your father knows what you need before you ask him." Enough, already! Forget the ACLU, the Constitution, and all earthly law! Heed Matthew 6: 5-8 and get over it!!!

  • Religion Will Always Exist
  • Posted by Robert , Dir. Comm at Multnomah on November 24, 2009 at 8:30pm EST
  • We have to remember to accept that as long as the human race exists, there will be religion and the unique demonstrations therein. People will pray - even corporately and publicly - if they know it to be true to their faith. That faith does not turn on and off. I'm not advocating for defense of public prayer like this or not, I just think that common sense and pragmatism demands that we step back and honestly ask ourselves if it's really hurting anyone. When the community at-large changes, then the "traditions" and "habits" of pre-event rituals will likely go with it. Also, bare in mind that people with religious "rituals" have to mind far more rules in society to avoid offending others than most of us are willing to acknowledge (I'll just give one example: talk of religion in the work place is most often classified like sexual harrassment if someone complains, but being a secular humanist-whatever-we-call-it-now does not worry about this - is this ok?).

    Remember folks, everybody is being repressed and oppressed by somebody in some circumstance somewhere if you look hard enough...you're not the only one.

    Surely we all have better things to do than to sue and defend, right?

    Meanwhile, genocide happens in other parts of the world...

  • Church and State
  • Posted by Cindy Cotter on November 24, 2009 at 10:15pm EST
  • I don't suppose it occurred to the framers of the Constitution that some day the state would run most schools. Therein lies the crux of the problem. I think religion in schools is a grand idea, but I don't think it works when schools are run by the government. What we need to do is separate school and state... but that would take a lot of doing.

  • Founded on Chrisianity?
  • Posted by Hannah , Ex-Adjunked on November 24, 2009 at 10:15pm EST
  • Well, I guess you could say our nation was "founded on Christianity"--after we killed off 90% of the natives that worshipped a pastoral type of hinduism/buddism. It was those same christian edicts that sanctioned killing off Native Americans, slavery, even racism and mysogynism in many cases. Different titles of regligions, just like different titles of government (facism, communism, socialism, etc.) take their main shapes in the groups of individual humans who inhabit those titles. Humans are humans, no matter the religious "gel" they pass through. That is why a prayer--christian, hebrew, muslim, hindu, whatever--has zero, zilch, nada, relgious value and almost total political and cultural value. when done at a public school function. People are truly "religious" in private and close small groups; true worshippers should be more upset at the gaudy, warped, and meaningless public display at a public school than the atheists. So we might focus on what political and cultural, not relgious, values are being debated with this topic.

  • Posted by Dr. Anonymous on November 25, 2009 at 5:00am EST
  • The First Amendment says only that there shall be no Established Church and no law relating thereto. That is all. I grew up saying the Lord's Prayer every day in school. It hurt no-one, and no-one complained. Christianity is the religion of the American nation; it also has been at the heart of the American experience since 1620. So: Jews, Muslims, and the various brands of atheism feel "on the outside" when prayers are said at public functions. Well: They ARE on the outside. And in their hearts they know it.

  • Response to Dr. Anonymous
  • Posted by CC Prof on November 25, 2009 at 8:30am EST
  • Dr. Anonymous claims that any non-Christian, including American Jews and American Muslims, are outsiders. What does that mean? Does it mean that they aren't really Americans? In general, I wish that everyone, especially politicians, would stop labeling other groups of Americans as "un-American." Such name-calling and stereotyping is really beneath serious discussion.

    Dr. Anonymous is making a common mistake in this debate. He or she is confounding one's civic identity with one's religious identity. Historically, that separation was a difficult matter, but that separation is here to stay. I suggest that Dr. Anonymous get used to it. Finally, people didn't complain when Dr. Anonymous was young, but they are complaining now. And those people who are complaining are every bit as American as Dr. Anonymous. To suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or evidence of bigotry.

  • Three Things ...
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on November 26, 2009 at 6:00am EST
  • First, Don Rucker wrote “... it was intended by our founders that Christianity was fundamental in the founding of our nation.”

    In the same vein, Dr. Anonymous weighed in with “Christianity is the religion of the American nation.”

    Needless to say, you guys are completely out to lunch. Write to me at ...

    Frizbane.Manley@gmail.com

    and I’ll send you a monograph, “The Founding Fathers and a Christian America” (PDF file), that will set you straight.

    Second, CL’s and ProfMan’s idea that, in a “Democracy” one must “duck and cover” when the majority speak reminded me of a subset of my voluminous collection of quotations. Here are just a few ...

    “Before I can live with other folks I've got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience” ... Atticus Finch (aka Harper Lee)

    “A living faith cannot be manufactured by the rule of majority” ... Mahatma Gandhi

    “In a republic this rule ought to be observed: that the majority should not have the predominant power” ... Marcus Tullius Cicero

    And the three quotations that strike me as being most apropos to this discussion are ...

    "The Government of the absolute majority instead of the Government of the people is but the Government of the strongest interests; and when not efficiently checked, it is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised" ... John C. Calhoun

    “When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong” ... Eugene Debs

    "The majority cares little for ideals and integrity. What it craves is display” ... Emma Goldman

    Third, I am not at all offended by all of this public display of religion. Watching remarkably egocentric football players cross the goal line, and drop to one knee (dropping to both knees would be too unmanly) to praise their Lord ... or watching a 350-pound defensive tackle sack a defenseless quarterback, then pound his chest (“I’ve got heart!”) and point to the sky (“Thank you precious Jesus for giving me the power to squelch that little bastard!”) certainly gets my stamp of approval.

    And a community college chancellor opening a meeting of the faculty by praying, “Please dear Jesus, help us with the impossible task of trying to educate these 39,000 marginally competent, completely unprepared, mostly unmotivated, essentially thankless children of the Almighty” seems like a reasonable entreaty to the God in whose image the 39,000 were created. It reminds me of something written by my favorite theologian; to wit ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVYIRbmxHpc

  • What is Identity?
  • Posted by Dr. Anonymous on November 26, 2009 at 6:00am EST
  • I believe that CC has misinterpreted my comment. More important, he wishes to simplify the quite complex question of what it means to be American. There is civic identity (all citizens are American, whatever their religious affiliation or lack thereof) and religious identity (their religious affiliation or lack thereof). There is also a nebulous quality: what it is to be American. Given the centrality of the Christian experience and of Christian faith to American history in its totality since 1620, people who repudiate that experience and faith (the majority commenters in this issue) are less American. Not un-American, of course not. But less American in the complex, total quality of belonging to the nation. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. A case can be made that all intellectuals (I do not necessarily include CC in this category) are less American because they are intellectuals. Many of us have other allegiances and loyalties than to the United States. There is nothing wrong with that. I simply believe that the deeply held Christianity of the vast majority of Americans should not be treated with hostility or contempt, and that irresponsible judges are separating the Christian faith that founded the nation from all aspects of public life. And that this latter exercise is inherently wrong; also quite interestingly un-American.

  • "Christian" American Identity?
  • Posted by Hannha , Ex-Adjunked on November 26, 2009 at 4:00pm EST
  • I think if it were possible for Dr. Anonymous to take a comprehensive head count of folks living in America between 1620 and the present, you'd find at least as many non-christians (whatever that term means) as "christians." Especially when you factor in the westernized hindusim of Native Americans and the various African faiths of the slaves, Jews, as well and the paganism of the Vikings. The "High" politicos were and still are heavily involved in the non-christian belief systems of the Masons. It's just that only white European males controlled the "media"--creating the impression that America was "founded" on "chrisianity." But look closer and you'll discover that "christianity" --its power still most accurately represented on our currency--was and probably still is a minority religion, espcially when you factor in the "non-christian" catholics. I"d dare say the "founding fathers", excepting those who felt chrisianity permitted Indian-killing, slave ownership, and witch-burning, would have deemed it very important for those of "different" faiths be granted the same independence of identity and culture as those who broke away from the church of England. No religion, espeically in the commercial, cartoon form expressed at a public school event, should represent itself as the "'American" one. A fundamental tenet of the constitution our "christian" "founding fathers" wrote insisted that we are NOT like other countries whose government, education, and cultural power are inextricably intertwined with religion. Protect American identiy by banning prayers at public school events.