Jim Stillman
Nevar
The Ten Commandments, school prayer and the end of civilization. Part I
August 7th 2007 14:25
While I have been feeling sorry for myself, arm in sling and trying to decide if whiskey or pain meds would work best, I have been reading the posts and comments of a few favorite contributors to these pages, among them S.L. Bradish, a woman who is always articulate and cogent, even when she lapses into exaggeration to prove a point.
[S.L. refuses to accede to my requesting her to be “my friend” on Orble, which reinforces my high opinion of her.]
Lately, however, she has been engaged in conversations with some sympathizers, Jesse Mitchell, Natasha, Anonymous, and a few really argumentative folks in opposition, Paul Angelo, Jeff Musall and others, all centered around the role of Christianity and the general exclusion of the religious icons of one faith or another from public and governmentally funded display or the wish of a diversified people to be free from organized prayer adopted and imposed by one sect or another.
S.L. and her supporters suggest the abolition of the public recital of Christian (actually mostly Protestant, the Catholic version is, I believe, a phrase shorter) prayer is the cause of youth run amok and without parental supervision or, conversely, that the governmental display of the Ten Commandments would elevate society and moral standards. She, and they, also point to the wish to be free of the majority’s symbols and ritual as evidence of prejudice against and hatred of Christianity.
There are two essential difficulties with these viewpoints. The first is the logical fallacy: post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which assumes that because one event follows another temporally, the first is the cause of the second. For example, the amount of cheese consumed in the United States increased from 4.5 pounds per person in 1909 to 30 pounds in 2001; the amount of ice cream consumed went from three pounds per person to over 15 pounds during the same period.
Does this mean that the increase in ice cream and cheese consumption is the cause for surly, impolite, grabby, disrespectful children? Of course not!
There is a far greater problem with school prayer or the public display of the Ten Commandments. Whose prayer, whose Commandments?
Let’s take the first issue, whose and what prayer shall be sanctioned. In a subsequent article, I will discuss the very real problems with using the Ten Commandments as a legal framework upon which to base secular law.
In 1962, the United States Supreme Court held that, because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. The prayer was, indeed, written to avoid offending anyone – and ended up offending everyone, including the truly pious who felt the prayer wishy-washy:
[A personal aside: does the Lord speak, or understand, or find Elizabethan English more holy? Neither Moses nor Jesus spoke in the 17th century vernacular.]
The Court, in Engle v Vitale, was clear in its holding and the reasons for it.
I recall a cartoon in The New Yorker at about that time, father to mother, “Now the damn kids will have to pray at home!”
In a recent post complaining about overt hostility towards Christians, S.L. responded to my comment,
Ms Bradish answered,
I do not for one moment question her statement; however, as a Jew, I do object to my children being pressured to pray to or through a deity they do not recognize. There are basic and fundamental differences. We do not and must not pray in the name of or through Jesus and we have cultural recollection of forced conversions to prove the point.
I have vivid memories of being chased by bullies in my grammar school days, calling me a “Christ killer’ and yelling that I was responsible for Jesus’ death. Priests taught (and do, still) their young parishioners about the “perfidious Jews”, resorts and hotels near where I grew up had placards at the front desk that “Jews and dogs” were unwelcome. All in the name of the majority faith that expected me to join in Christmas festivals, the singing of carols and the joining of prayer “in His Name”.
Please do not expect me to be concerned over alleged persecution of the majority. The minorities among us need protection. There will always be sufficient votes to safeguard the interests of the majority-popular portions of our society.
So, first one must examine the question of organized prayer in schools with the initial inquiry: whose prayer? Who will choose?
Better to have prayer meaningful, heart-felt, not by rote but sincere as Jesus had urged, privately and not for display. Maybe, God forbid, at home, with family.
__
In the next part of this post, I will point out the same issues arise when the suggestion is made that public governmental display of the Ten Commandments would elevate public behavior. Whose Commandments and whose behavior?
[S.L. refuses to accede to my requesting her to be “my friend” on Orble, which reinforces my high opinion of her.]
Lately, however, she has been engaged in conversations with some sympathizers, Jesse Mitchell, Natasha, Anonymous, and a few really argumentative folks in opposition, Paul Angelo, Jeff Musall and others, all centered around the role of Christianity and the general exclusion of the religious icons of one faith or another from public and governmentally funded display or the wish of a diversified people to be free from organized prayer adopted and imposed by one sect or another.
S.L. and her supporters suggest the abolition of the public recital of Christian (actually mostly Protestant, the Catholic version is, I believe, a phrase shorter) prayer is the cause of youth run amok and without parental supervision or, conversely, that the governmental display of the Ten Commandments would elevate society and moral standards. She, and they, also point to the wish to be free of the majority’s symbols and ritual as evidence of prejudice against and hatred of Christianity.
There are two essential difficulties with these viewpoints. The first is the logical fallacy: post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which assumes that because one event follows another temporally, the first is the cause of the second. For example, the amount of cheese consumed in the United States increased from 4.5 pounds per person in 1909 to 30 pounds in 2001; the amount of ice cream consumed went from three pounds per person to over 15 pounds during the same period.
Does this mean that the increase in ice cream and cheese consumption is the cause for surly, impolite, grabby, disrespectful children? Of course not!
There is a far greater problem with school prayer or the public display of the Ten Commandments. Whose prayer, whose Commandments?
Let’s take the first issue, whose and what prayer shall be sanctioned. In a subsequent article, I will discuss the very real problems with using the Ten Commandments as a legal framework upon which to base secular law.
In 1962, the United States Supreme Court held that, because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. The prayer was, indeed, written to avoid offending anyone – and ended up offending everyone, including the truly pious who felt the prayer wishy-washy:
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."
[A personal aside: does the Lord speak, or understand, or find Elizabethan English more holy? Neither Moses nor Jesus spoke in the 17th century vernacular.]
The Court, in Engle v Vitale, was clear in its holding and the reasons for it.
“The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.” [Emphasis supplied.]
I recall a cartoon in The New Yorker at about that time, father to mother, “Now the damn kids will have to pray at home!”
In a recent post complaining about overt hostility towards Christians, S.L. responded to my comment,
“School kids are allowed to pray if they so wish; I certainly said a silent prayer before tests and a less worthy one before some dates. Problems arise when prayers are said aloud in a public ceremony, written or authorized by government and those of a faith other than the majority are asked or pressured by their peers to participate. Question: would you be equally in favor of a public prayer from a Wiccan? How would you feel about your taxes and public space being used to display religious tokens and symbols relating to Islam or, again, Wicca?”
Ms Bradish answered,
“Concerning prayer of any faith, by all means, have a Wiccan or Pagan say directions before a game or graduation! Read from the Talmud! Trust me on this Jim, I wouldn't be the least bit offended.”
I do not for one moment question her statement; however, as a Jew, I do object to my children being pressured to pray to or through a deity they do not recognize. There are basic and fundamental differences. We do not and must not pray in the name of or through Jesus and we have cultural recollection of forced conversions to prove the point.
I have vivid memories of being chased by bullies in my grammar school days, calling me a “Christ killer’ and yelling that I was responsible for Jesus’ death. Priests taught (and do, still) their young parishioners about the “perfidious Jews”, resorts and hotels near where I grew up had placards at the front desk that “Jews and dogs” were unwelcome. All in the name of the majority faith that expected me to join in Christmas festivals, the singing of carols and the joining of prayer “in His Name”.
Please do not expect me to be concerned over alleged persecution of the majority. The minorities among us need protection. There will always be sufficient votes to safeguard the interests of the majority-popular portions of our society.
So, first one must examine the question of organized prayer in schools with the initial inquiry: whose prayer? Who will choose?
Better to have prayer meaningful, heart-felt, not by rote but sincere as Jesus had urged, privately and not for display. Maybe, God forbid, at home, with family.
__
In the next part of this post, I will point out the same issues arise when the suggestion is made that public governmental display of the Ten Commandments would elevate public behavior. Whose Commandments and whose behavior?
| 61 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Second, I would think, being a Jew, that you would honor the Ten Commandments. Didn't Moses bring them down from the mountain?
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
For example, I, personally, do not believe it should be a criminal act to curse, have a painting purporting to be that of God, or wearing a woolen-cotton blend shirt. On the other hand, if you, or anyone, choose to find these acts offensive, that’s OK with me. I wouldn’t have you arrested.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Paul Angelo
S.L. saying to you that as a jew, you should "honor the 10 commandments" proves how ridiculous her logic really is. At what point did you say the 10 commandments suck, or dishonor them in any way? Of course you didin't do any of that, yet she concludes that because you are advocating secularism in public institutions, you must automatically hate the 10 commandments (as if that would even matter anyway). She is the queen of straw man tactics.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty