Monday, April 9, 2012

Inspirational Message or Masked Prayer?


            Within our class we have discussed whether religion should have a place in the public classroom.  Even after a history of legal cases and public debates, our society still is tackling this question.  Recently, Florida has passed a bill that would allow “inspirational messages” to be read by students during events sponsored by the public school.  For many, this broad statement is a mask to endorse prayer or religious messages to be said at school events why some are arguing that it is only meant to protect heart felt messages to be said to the crowd.  Though this bill has yet to go into effect, there are already threats of lawsuits in limiting what form these inspirational messages will take.

            This bill is one that has many implications attached to it.  Throughout the history that we have seen, it was the student whose ability to practice their religious beliefs was protected.  This bill extends a protection to those practices while defining their religious practices as inspirational messages.  Again,  we see the entanglement that occurs when religion and the student is examined.  One cannot inhibit their practices but this bill extends a forum by which these practices can become public.  For example, a student can choose to open an event with a prayer.  This example has many other factors though.  Is the school only choosing students who are inclined to say a particular type of prayer?  What will happen if the student chooses to pray to Allah?  Will the school define inspirational messages in a way that only particular religions will apply?  Such questions demonstrate that such a broad term can truly harm the religious freedom of the student.  Also, as one watches the events that unfold with this bill, one may see the students religious practices come into question.  This bill begins to intertwine the place of the school and the students beliefs in a way that endorsement is possible to happen.  Additionally, such a thing can be dangerous because if endorsement occurs then a question of a place for the student’s religious beliefs in the school can occur.
            When tackling this bill with my opinion, I find that this bill can be dangerous.  The questions that I posed earlier play in my mind around this bill.  I also believe it can be a dangerous game when the students are given the freedom to choose the inspirational message at these events.  I say this not because I am against the free speech of a student but because now that speech is becoming endorsed by the state.  Such a bill brings into question the student’s right to free speech and I fear that some are using this to mask an attempt to bring into the school religious messages.  I also wonder if these messages will need to be reviewed by the school before they are delivered.  This could lead to a type of control that I consider dangerous because it ascribes power to the school to define what can and cannot be considered inspirational.  I believe there are implications to this bill that some have not thought through.  I believe we begin to play a dangerous game when we use students and their rights as a method of propagating a particular message in the public school.  In the end, I believe the we will see how the rights of students and their religious expression will come into question with implementation of this new bill.

7 comments:

Aanal P. said...

This bill will allow the violation of the lemon test. its primary purpose is unclear, although it is just to provide a inspirational message, it doesn’t specify if that message needs to be secular, especially because the student is given the opportunity to chose the message they wish to convey. The second thing is that the primary effect can be to inhibit or advance religion according to the kind of inspirational message being conveyed. Doing either puts the school, the student, and the government in violation of the 2nd part of the lemon test. And allowing this kind of practice will definitely allows the gates of excessive entanglement to be wide open. So this practice definitely violates all three parts of the lemon test, but we must also consider that students have a right to advance and inhibit religion as long as there is no influence of a government employee. SO this practice may not be in as much violation of the religion clauses as we presume it to be. Students have a right to initiate religious and secular practices on government regulated grounds due to their free exercise rights. It is hard to declare the constitutionality of the bill with this much information, may be its application will make it more clear.

Rebekah said...

This article reminds me of the Santa Fe Independent School System v. Doe case we discussed in class. Here also the school system left ambiguous guidelines for what could be discussed and how speakers were chosen. Even before it was practiced, these speeches were decided to be unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause. I don't see how this school system has a chance especially as children are required to attend school.

Tiffany S. said...

I definitely agree that this bill is dangerous. We have already discussed cases about devotions being ruled as unconstitutional, so why would inspirational messages be any different? The school should just stick to moments of silence, if they feel compelled to do anything at all. At least with moments of silence, students can choose what they wanted to do. Inspirational messages just opens the doors for teachers and principals to be free with interpretation and thinking it is ok for prayers or scripture reading.

joycek said...

Inspirational readings fall under the guise of school prayer and devotional activities. This is a repeat of the battle over school prayer in the 1950s and 60s. The readings have a distinct feeling of the type of bland “universal prayer” that was written for public schools as described in Engel v. Vitale (1962). There is an element of coercion. Inspirational readings derive from a pluralistic understanding and include ideals of morality based on religious tenets. The school is clearly substituting inspirational readings for prayer and should be avoided.

Angela S. said...

Inspirational probably does mean religious in this context, but inspirational doesn't have to mean religious. Inspirational also includes things like: “Read, every day, something no one else is reading. Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to be always part of unanimity.” Christopher Morley (1890 - 1957)*

*http://www.literacyla.org/quotes.htm

Anne G said...

Blake, I just don't see the danger. Can a student's freedom to choose a reading, as Angela suggests, or say a prayer enhance or establish religion? I think not. If all students are allowed to participate without coercive pressure from school officials - then where is the harm? Let's face it, getting (and allowing) students to think is a good thing.

jacobr said...

I enjoyed this blog and I learned a lot. However I do not agreed completely with all of the points argued, but I understood how the author of this blog came to their conclusion.