Why is it that some public school children are gathering around flagpoles and some individuals are standing on center stage in order to pray in public? Two reasons:
1. They want to be seen. They want newspaper photographers and television cameras to show their pictures on front pages and evening newscasts. They are making a public display and inviting the media; or, at the least, they are attempting to make a public scene in order to be seen by fellow students or the community.
2. They want to protest public school policy. Advocates of public prayer believe that public institutions should acknowledge God and should not be neutral in regard to religion. Public school policy has generally refused to allow schools to function as churches. Religious zealots have responded by way of public demonstrations and have succeeded in attracting attention through flagpole prayer meetings, law suits, or other open appeals for news coverage.
Another question often raised by public prayer advocates: What is wrong with public prayer or public school prayer assemblies? Some answers:
1. Public prayer deliberately staged in order to be seen by others is condemned outright by the acknowledged founder of Christianity. In Matthew 6:5-6 Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said.
2. Public prayer, vocal or obvious, is not necessary unless God is hard of hearing or has poor eyesight. God hears silent prayer and sees in private.
3. Public schools are not churches. Public institutions belong to citizens of every religious persuasion, should remain neutral, and should not be forced by pressure from anyone--majority or minority--to become tools for the promotion of religion. Public schools can teach about religion as a part of the human experience in history, but they should not serve as churches or indoctrination centers for any religion . Public schools should certainly teach and uphold the constitutional principle of separation between religion and government.
4. Advocates of public prayer at public functions apparently believe that such pious demonstrations have a positive impact. However, the practice often causes disharmony. In communities large and small the religious zealot viewpoint attempts, like the Crusades of the past, to overwhelm and browbeat the community into submission or silence. Nevertheless, in America religion is to be freely exercised, not established by law, government, or force. Imposed religion is un-American and un-Christian (contrary to the principle of voluntary acceptance).
Proponents of government sponsored prayer claim that the Founding Fathers allowed formal public prayer in the 1787 Constitutional Convention. No, the record states that the proposal failed "without any vote on the motion" (Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 1:452). In fact, "in the Franklin MS, the following note is added:--'The Convention, except three or four persons, thought Prayers unnecessary'" (Farrand, 1:452, n.15).
James Madison discussed "the proposition of Doctor Franklin in favor of a religious service in the Federal Convention" and writes that reports of Franklin's motion being approved by the Convention are "erroneous" (Writings, 9:529).
Proponents assert that the first Continental Congress immediately on its assembling adopted a resolution calling for prayer at the opening of each daily session and designated an Episcopal clergyman to act as chaplain of Congress. True, but "the person selected, after serving as chaplain two years, resigned, went over to the British, and departed to England" (Church, State, and Freedom, 1967, p. 120).
The First Congress in 1789 hired chaplains and required that "two Chaplains of different denominations . . . shall interchange weekly." However, the decision was not unanimous. James Madison said, "it was not with my approbation [approval] , that . . . they appointed Chaplains, to be paid from the Nat. Treasury" (Writings, 9:100).
Further, Madison asked: "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? . . . In strictness the answer to both points must be in the negative. . . . The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable [easily noticeable] violation of . . . constitutional principles" (William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:558).
In 1962 the U. S. Supreme Court correctly ruled that a New York State Board of Regents written and required "prayer" was unconstitutional because: "It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people" (Engel at 370 U. S. 425). In 1963 the Court wrote: "The command of the First Amendment that the Government maintain strict neutrality . . . does not permit a State to require a religious exercise even with the consent of the majority of those affected" (Abington at 374 U. S. 225).
Amen! Copyright 1996 Gene Garman