The Argument:
As far as the “birthers” go, common sense says if there wasn’t anything to hide, then nobody would be hiding anything, right?

My Answer:
There is a fundamental principle of inquiry – that is assuming one cares about the truth – that assertions should be based on evidence. The absence of evidence does not constitute evidence. So far as the courts and I can tell, nobody is hiding anything. To accept assertions on insufficient evidence risks making oneself a tool for evil hands.

By the way: The argument presented is a common fallacy.  The argument in the general form goes something like: If you haven’t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide. I assume everyone reading this can understand why this argument is not valid.  It always bugs me when I hear people say it, especially in this country where we have an enshrined right to privacy arising from the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Counterpunch:
But isn’t it a duty to show the evidence if a person is running for President?

My Answer:
Yes, it is. And this was done to the satisfaction of the U.S. courts more than once.

The Non-Sequitur:
And that is enough to satify a you?  Big difference between this and McCain, and you know it.

My Answer:
Yes, there is a big difference.

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, a tenuous and temporary extension of the US and not a state of the union. If elected, McCain would have been the first US President to have been born outside the states. This was a serious legal matter that ultimately ended in a (nonbinding) Senate resolution and required real legal investigation by a bipartisan legal review. This is because “natural born” is not defined in the Constitution. While McCain would be very, very likely to prevail in a legal challenge, it is not assured. In short, the courts have not ruled on this matter.

Obama was born in Hawaii, our 50th state, and a state of the union. He has provided documentation of his birth adequate for all legal purposes. In addition, his original birth certificate has been examined by the director of the Hawaii State Department of Health who attested to its authenticity under oath. The Republican governor of the state, Linda Lingle, has also attested to Obama’s status. The US courts have ruled on this matter.

So, yes, there is a big difference. Obama’s status as a naturalized citizen is well established. McCain’s is not.

I’m certainly not against prayer in school. In fact, as a strong believer in freedom I think it is essential that people be free from government interference (within limits) to follow the “dictates of their consciences.” To be more specific: While I do not believe you are entitled to your opinion, I also do not think it is the government’s job to fix it. You have a right to be free of government interference in what you believe, think, and even do, provided you don’t initiate the use of force against another person. At that point the government can step in. Deciding where that point is can be a thorny exercise, of course.

But back to prayer in school. What exactly would I be signing up for? I visit the page and click Info. Here’s what it says at the time of writing.

This is to see how many people belive [sic] that prayer should be allowed back into public school.

“Allowed back?” I have made the point elsewhere that prayer and Bible reading are not against the law in schools. In fact, courts in the United States have consistently held that religious expression by students cannot be suppressed or abridged unless it can be shown to cause substantial disruption. Essentially you are free to pray, but not if you disrupt classes or block a fire exit. You can even form student prayer groups and meet on school grounds thanks to the Federal Equal Access Act, passed back in 1984.

I have also argued elsewhere that groups like this fall into two categories: those that genuinely misunderstand the current laws, and those who seek to use government to promote their views over the views of others.

I agree with the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church, and the American Baptist Churches that “current law quite sufficiently provides adequate constitutional and statutory protections against violations of the right of voluntary prayer.” This statement comes from a letter to which the before mentioned organizations were signatories.

Given that I believe the current laws are consistent with the Constitution and adequate to protect voluntary prayer, and given that I do not want government to promulgate values, I cannot become a “fan” of the group. In fact, I’m a bit surprised anyone is.

Their current membership is 131,648. I find myself wondering what these folks think they are signing up to support. Let’s read! To avoid accusations of cherry-picking, I’ll just grab the first three posts from the Wall, at the time of writing, verbatim and in order. I don’t give the full names, but you can visit the site (linked at the start of this note) to read for yourself.

Cathy D: You know the shirt may say, God why do u allow so much violence in our schools, but when God is not allowed in the schools, how do they expect him to help…

Cathy D: We need PRAYER back in our schools, in our lives, and homes. Some children would never hear a prayer but at school. Let’s get PRAYER back in our schools. Please Lord help us to get this done..

Andrea S: There are T-shirts you can buy that state on the front “Public Schools Need God” and has 2 letters written on the back. The letters state
“Dear God, Why do you allow so much violence in our schools? Sincerely Yours, A Concerned Student….
Dear Concerned Student, I am not allowed in school. Sincerely Yours, God.”
It says it all. When people started stepping and having God removed from our schools, we seemed to have a lot more tragedies across the nation. We need God in our schools and in our country. I do not understand why people are trying to throw Him out when He is what this country was initially founded upon.. It’s a shame..

Cathy D specifically writes “Some children would never hear a prayer but at school.” That is, she isn’t seeking a right for students to pray in school (which they already have), she wants the students to hear a school-sanctioned prayer whether or not their parents or guardians do. If this sounds noble to you, you haven’t thought it through. Please read the articles I linked above.

Andera S gives the oft-repeated argument that school violence is linked to the removal of school-sponsored prayer. Again, I covered that before. To my knowledge no causal link has been established, and many of the arguments about specific social decay (teen pregnancy, divorce, violent crime) are not supported by easily-available evidence.

So, as someone who values freedom, including religious freedom, this group is not for me.

President Barack Obama

Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer says Obama’s school speech uses taxpayer dollars (i.e., your dollars) to indoctrinate your children.

As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology.

Source: CNN

Really. Do you support compulsory government-funded education? Okay, there’s no point in asking that.

Anyway, I found nothing particularly objectionable in the speech itself. You can read it here (whitehouse.gov), if you dare. That’s right. It’s on the Internet, where anyone might see it.

Most seem to object to the content of the lesson plan.

[...] Critics objected to the language of one of the lesson plans, for students in pre-kindergarten through grade 6, that suggested that students “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” Another assignment for students after hearing the speech was to discuss what “the president wants us to do.”

Source: FOX News

That letter writing exercise has been changed. It is now “Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.” (Ibid.)

Okay. It takes some fine parsing to take offense at the original plan, but then many believe that the Obama administration is making use of subtle linguistic cues to help liberal educators spread a message of socialism. Nothing can be done to help such people. But what about the speech?

I can’t imagine how seeing Obama’s face on television would have scarred me. Write a letter? What did Obama say he wanted me to do? Stay in school? Thankfully I only heard that from video games, along with “Winners don’t use drugs!” Of course, I did stay in school and didn’t use drugs, so the damage was done. Hopefully there’s still time to save this generation from my fate. Teaching ill-defined fear of our elected leaders is a good way to start.

Van Jones

Gone. Unsurprising, really. Was Van Jones a truther? Well, he signed the petition, and I don’t think he can point to any public statement where he repudiated the truthers until recently… and then very weakly. He says he was the victim of a “vicious smear campaign.” Sure, I’ll grant that. So? He’s a politician and a lawyer, after all.

See the quotation and his repudiation of the truthers in the USA Today.

Is what he said really a big deal?

At times like this I like to quote the late Richard Mitchell, of The Underground Grammarian. In his essay “Less Than Words Can Say” he offers us the passage below, which I quote in full. The italics are his, the bold emphasis is mine.

Not many years ago, it was a popular sport to collect and publish silly mistakes made by schoolchildren in their compositions. Many books of these so-called boners were printed for the delectation of grown-ups who laughed and chuckled. “Heh, heh, ain’t they cute.” Sometimes venturesome publishers went even further and printed collections of idiocies from the notes that schoolchildren brought from home. These were usually pathetic examples from barely literate people, but we chuckled and laughed some more. Now, like desperate drillers looking for new pockets of gas, we publish collections of the pomposities and malapropisms of politicians and bureaucrats. Again we chuckle and laugh. We don’t find them quite as cute as those cunning kids, but still we laugh. It makes us feel superior. And because we feel superior we forgive; and we’re willing to believe that a member of the city council, say, or a senator, shouldn’t be judged too harshly merely by the inanity of his words. We’ll still reelect him. After all, anybody can make a mistake. We make this mistake because it does not occur to us that there is no other way to judge the work of a mind except through its words, and we pay attention only long enough to be amused. In fact, however, those silly little mistakes always mean something important.

You can find an archive of Mitchell’s writings at The Underground Grammarian.

On Meet the Press today (September 6, 2009) David Gregory was interviewing David Axelrod, the President’s Senior Adviser. It isn’t on Hulu yet, so I’ll include a link to the YouTube clip. It will probably be taken down soon. Here’s the part of the exchange I find interesting, with me inserted.

Gregory: Do you find it, what he [Van Jones] said, objectionable?
Me: [Yelling at the TV] Just say yes! Just say yes!
Axelrod: Well I haven’t read all of, of his comments either, David. Again, I’m focused on how we get health security for all Americans, how do we get this economy moving in the right direction. We’ve pulled back from the abyss of a potential collapse, and now we have to build for the future and get people back to work. I think those are the things we should be focused on, and that’s what I am focused on.
Me: [Groan]

See the segment on YouTube.

Why is this hard? If Van Jones said that he had been interested in what the 9/11 truth movement had to say, but after he found out he realized that they were nuts, he might be okay. (There are still his comments about Republicans, of course, but that’s a different, also toxic, matter.) So I have almost the same reaction to Axelrod’s inability to reject Van Jones’ comments as I do with, say, John McCain’s inability to reject President Bush’s policies.

Okay, so is this really a big deal? Does believing that government officials may have been complicit in 9/11 really mean you are unfit to hold office? Our elected officials believe a great many surprising, wrong, and even downright idiotic things, but we elect them anyway. Perhaps he was merely a victim of picking an unpopular thing to support.

I don’t think it is just a matter of an unpopular choice. First, let me say that our government has done some terrible things and covered them up. If you need a short list, email me or, better still, consult the historians. Isn’t it possible that members of the Bush administration were actively complicit in the 9/11 attacks? Of course not.

First, the explanation given is simple, direct, and easily understood. Religious extremists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. We know where they trained to fly, how the got in the country, etc. The trail is really clear, the story hangs together, and it makes sense. In fact, even the engineering makes sense. We know why the buildings, even building 7, collapsed. All the evidence (and there is a lot of it) supports the story we all know; none of it supports the truthers’ many versions. The truthers are in the same situation as the birthers.

The other story is that members of the administration let it happen. I don’t buy this, either. Bush did not surround himself with the kind of people who passed at the chance to be heroes. Plus, how did they find out? From the CIA? The NSA? The FBI? In all three cases the intel would have triggered law enforcement actions, such as investigations and the creation of files. Maybe folks should have known, but sadly it seems they did not.

So we’re back to whether or not it matters. And I say yes, it does. This administration has an ambitious agenda (whether you agree with it or not) and needs public support to accomplish any of these things and even to just accomplish the business of running the country. We’re engaged in two wars started as a result of 9/11, and going through upheavals on who specifically broke the law on interrogations. Adding someone who thinks, absent any evidence, that the former administration assisted in these attacks is toxic.

So, exit Van Jones, for now. He was one of the co-founders of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and will remain actively engaged in political life, I’m sure. With only minor apologies to Fitzgerald, there are plenty of second acts in American lives.

Health Care

How about passing simple legislation that is straightforward? We could do each of these – but not in one bill!

1. Allow purchasing health insurance from out-of-state vendors. That is, “crossing state lines” to buy insurance. This is currently illegal.
2. Allow and encourage the formation of health insurance alliances that pool many small businesses or even individuals.
3. Require insurers to offer a basic “minimum coverage” policy. We could require everyone to purchase it… and make it (a) tax exempt or (b) refundable. We could even do a “prebate” as with the Fair Tax.

These would probably help now. More high-power tinkering could be done down the road. I really, really don’t understand the rush to solve our problem with a giant heap of legislation whose net effect is nearly impossible to predict because of its complexity. It is idiotic, and it might doom any sort of meaningful reform or cost control measures.

As for the above, the only one that requires any outlay from Uncle Sam is possibly option 3. The others just introduce and encourage competition.

Health Care

I’ve seen the “public option” compared to the Post Office (by the President), and I just saw it compared to public colleges by Sen. Schumer (D-NY).

The explanation of the public option that I keep hearing is: The government will set it up, and then it must compete on its own, and the government will be “hands off” after that. To that I say: maybe. Suppose the public option plan begins to have trouble, and starts to fail. Won’t we bail it out? It has to compete with other insurers. Believe it or not, these have patents on business processes. Will the public option be given the royalty-free right to use these processes? If so, it isn’t a level playing field.

Does the government even have the authority to create such an entity? The Post Office is, after all, explicitly an enumerated power in the constitution. Clearly they do… but really, should they?

If Schumer’s analogy (like public colleges) is apt, then I would point out that the government subsidizes public colleges. But I am repeatedly told that the public option will not be subsidized.

The Post Office is a pseudo-independent corporation and receives no tax funds. But it has only been this way since 1971 (thank you Mr. Nixon); before that the Postmaster General was a Cabinet position, and was, in fact, in line to succeed the President.

Maybe Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the models to follow. But Fannie and Freddie are protected monopolies. Then again, so is the Post Office. It is illegal for anyone else to deliver letters.* Even better, all three are exempt from state and federal taxes and free from most government regulations.** We could expect much the same from the public option, I suspect.

(* The USPO has a monopoly over the delivery of certain kinds of mail, and also over access to your mailbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service)

(** Fannie Mae pays property taxes: http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/charter.jhtml. But not state or local taxes! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_mae)

It is starting to look like the public option is dying. Maybe that’s sad, but there’s no way to know. So far as I can tell, it was never adequately explained.

Health Care

In order for the market to reduce the cost to you, you need two things.

• You need to have a choice.
• You need to be the one paying the bill.

If you lack either of these, you will be, in essence, ignored by the market, almost as if you were a non-participant.

So… what about health care?

First, we have little or no choice in most cases. Most of us have health insurance provided by our employers, and they typically have just one or maybe two options. This leads to a lack of choice that Obama and others decry, and hope to fix by introducing a public option. Further, I am not the one paying the majority of the bill; my employer is.

The insurance company negotiates a contract with my employer, and seeks to satisfy them. I have no other options, since I cannot afford to go off the employer-provided insurance, and so I’ve lost choice and I’m not the party paying. That’s not a good situation when you are the consumer of a good.

To find out why we ended up with this system we have to go back to World War II. During the war labor is scarce, for obvious reasons. Companies would typically compete for labor by offering better wages, but there are price and wage controls in place. Companies are, however, allowed to compete by offering employee insurance plans, including health benefits.

I found a pretty good discussion of this here:

Offering insurance policies to employee groups not only benefited insurers, but also benefited employers. During World War II, wage and price controls prevented employers from using wages to compete for scarce labor. Under the 1942 Stabilization Act, Congress limited the wage increases that could be offered by firms, but permitted the adoption of employee insurance plans. In this way, health benefit packages offered one means of securing workers. In the 1940s, two major rulings also reinforced the foundation of the employer-provided health insurance system. First, in 1945 the War Labor Board ruled that employers could not modify or cancel group insurance plans during the contract period. Then, in 1949, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in a dispute between the Inland Steel Co. and the United Steelworkers Union that the term “wages” included pension and insurance benefits. Therefore, when negotiating for wages, the union was allowed to negotiate benefit packages on behalf of workers as well. This ruling, affirmed later by the U.S. Supreme Court, further reinforced the employment-based system.

Perhaps the most influential aspect of government intervention that shaped the employer-based system of health insurance was the tax treatment of employer-provided contributions to employee health insurance plans. First, employers did not have to pay payroll tax on their contributions to employee health plans. Further, under certain circumstances, employees did not have to pay income tax on their employer’s contributions to their health insurance plans. The first such exclusion occurred under an administrative ruling handed down in 1943 which stated that payments made by the employer directly to commercial insurance companies for group medical and hospitalization premiums of employees were not taxable as employee income (Yale Law Journal, 1954, pp. 222-247). While this particular ruling was highly restrictive and limited in its applicability, it was codified and extended in 1954. Under the 1954 Internal Revenue Code (IRC), employer contributions to employee health plans were exempt from employee taxable income. As a result of this tax-advantaged form of compensation, the demand for health insurance further increased throughout the 1950s (Thomasson 2003).

I leave it to the historians out there to check that, but it jives pretty well with what I’ve read elsewhere.

So let’s summarize. Our gov’t created a system that reinforced employer-provided health insurance. This resulted in lack of competition, and now they are going to fix the lack of competition by adding a public option. What have I missed?

Barack Obama

What about Obama’s KENYAN birth certificate produced by Orly Taitz?
http://gnn.tv/threads/36212/Shocking_New_Birth_Certificate_Proof_Obama_Born_In_Kenya

I was asked about this recently. It took me less than one minute to find the following, and follow just a few of the references.

From Wikipedia (they determine our reality):

On August 2, 2009, Orly Taitz released and attached to court documents what she alleged to be an authentic Kenyan birth certificate. Legal documents submitted describe the document as an “unauthenticated color photocopy of certified copy of registration of birth”.[47][48] The document was almost immediately revealed to be a forgery. It purports to have been issued by the “Republic of Kenya”, when in fact, such a state did not yet exist at the time of Obama’s birth as indicated on the document (Kenya was a Dominion of the British Crown until 1963).[49][50] Additionally, Mombasa, the city indicated on the certificate as Obama’s birthplace, was not located in Kenya, but in Zanzibar.[50][51] Subsequently, evidence was unearthed that the alleged Kenyan birth certificate is probably a modified version of a 1959 Australian birth certificate found on an online genealogy website.[52][53] The Washington Independent cited an anonymous blogger [54] as having taken credit for the forgery and posting four photos substantiating the claim.[55] Examples of actual 1961 Kenyan birth certificates have also been revealed, which look substantially different from the document Taitz submitted to the court. [56]

I don’t think that anything will satisfy the birthers because I do not think they care what the truth is or even what the United States Constitution says. As far as I know the birthers still have no evidence. All the newspaper evidence and official documents support Obama’s birth in Hawaii; none support anything else.

If I’m missing something, let me know.

Sarah Palin

The Palin speech really is poetry. Read below. It makes me want to go to Alaska.

And getting up here I say:
It is the best road trip in America.
Soaring through nature’s finest show.
Denali, the great one,
Soaring under the midnight sun.
And then the extremes.

In the winter time it’s the frozen road
That is competing with the view
Of ice fogged frigid beauty.
The cold though.
Doesn’t it split the Cheechakos
From the Sourdoughs?

And then in the summertime,
Such extreme summertime.
About a hundred and fifty degrees
Hotter than just some months ago,
Than just some months from now,
With fireweed blooming
Along the frost heaves
And merciless rivers that
  are rushing
    and carving
      and reminding us that here, Mother Nature wins.

It is as throughout all Alaska
That big wild good life teeming
Along the road that is north
To the future.

I wonder who wrote it? It isn’t crazy-talk. “The cold though, doesn’t it split the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs?” A cheechako is a newcomer to Alaska, while a sourdough is a long-time resident of Alaska. And “north, to the future?” That’s Alaska’s state motto. Denali? That’s the local Athabaskan name and official Alaskan name for Mount McKinley, and it means “The Great One.” It has greater bulk and rise that Everest, so it’s a good name.

Whatever else you might say about Palin, this part of the speech was directed to Alaskans, her constituency, and while people down here in the lower 48 might chuckle at it, it was actually a good political speech. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand — her resignation with a year and a half remaining — but then that is one of the hallmarks of a good political speech.

In short, don’t count Sarah Palin out. She may not get my vote, but if she learns to speak to the rest of America in this way then we can expect quite a bit from her in the coming years. After all, we’re suckers for poetry.

1. Those who genuinely misunderstand the U.S. legal position on prayer and Bible reading in public schools.
2. Those who understand the U.S. legal position, but want to use the machinery of the state to advance their own cause.

In both cases I fear the end result is the spreading of misinformation.  In this post I’m going to excerpt from publicly-available online postings to support the above.  I’ll provide links, unless asked to remove them by the site maintainers, so that you can have them in full context.  I don’t want to misrepresent anyone’s position on this issue, or to be guilty of spreading misinformation.

Citations tagged “wall post” or “discussion thread” can be found on the Facebook page for Put Christ Back Into Schools, linked at the start of this article.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

– KJV, Matthew 6:5-8

Current Legal Status

My previous posting contained a discussion of the legal status of both prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, so I won’t repeat it here.  Instead, I’ll just summarize.

First, neither prayer nor reading the Bible (or any other holy text) is disallowed per se. Courts in the United States have consistently held that religious expression by students cannot be suppressed or abridged unless it can be shown to cause substantial disruption. What is disallowed is school sponsored prayer or Bible reading, even when it is ostensibly student-led.

Though I did not mention it in the prior post, student groups such as those for Bible study or prayer may be organized and meet on school grounds under the federal Equal Access Act passed in 1984.

The Supreme Court and others have consistently held that school policies promoting religion violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the several states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are cases of note where student groups have been considered “disruptive” on what may be shaky ground.  However it is not at all hard to find student-led prayer groups meeting on high school grounds.  Clearly both Bible reading and prayer are taking place legally in public schools.

There are books on this topic.  The Fourth R: Conflicts Over Religion in America’s Public Schools, by Joan DelFattore, is one example.

The current U.S. Department of Education guidelines on prayer in public schools can be found in the short article Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools available on the Department’s web site.

Misinformation

People are confused about the state of prayer in school, and believe prayer to be illegal.

I really hope this does work because i would to see my children to be able to Pray in school when i have kids and when they are able to. We need to keep praying about this, that gos let’s it happen and that it continues to grow…..

– wall post by MD, 3/10/2009

I find it astonishing just how wrong many “informational” sites are on this issue.

The U. S. Supreme Court issued two bans on prayer in public schools. The first ban came in 1962 and the second was issued in 1963. The bans were the result of a court case sponsored in part by Madalyn Murray O’Hair. She was but one of the litigants in the lawsuit, but her name became synonymous with the case and the promotion of atheism. The ban not only outlawed prayer in public schools but it also banned Bible reading in public schools.

– Excerpted from http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/prayer-in-the-public-schools-faq.htm

Just to reiterate: There is no ban on either prayer or Bible reading in public schools.  It is school policies that may be held unconstitutional, as per the Lemon Test.

Others seem to play a bit fast and loose with what is or is not “banned.”

On June 25, l962, 39 million students were forbidden to do what they and their predecessors had been doing since the founding of our nation – publicly calling upon the name of the Lord at the beginning of each school day.

The New York school children which prompted the Engel vs. Vitale ruling had simply prayed: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee and beg Thy blessing over us, our parents, our teachers and our nation.”

– Excerpted from http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0098_Ban_on_school_prayer.html, by Gary Bergel

It would seem Mr. Bergel knows the appropriate case.  The text of the decision is easily available via FindLaw.  He even quotes the prayer that was at issue.  However the text “39 million students were forbidden to do what they and their predecessors had been doing since the founding of our nation” is disingenuous, to say the least.  The students were not forbidden from doing anything; the ruling again applied to a school policy, and enjoined the school as an agent of the state.  Students remained free to pray or not pray as they wished.

Advocacy sites do a poor job of history, but then they are advocacy sites, after all.

From the time the Pilgrims landed in 1620 until the Supreme Court Rulings of 1963, (a span of 343 years) School Prayer and Bible reading were considered Religious Freedoms.

[...]

While Congress has never passed a Law that Prohibits Prayer in School, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is Illegal for children to Pray in School because it violates the “Separation of Church and State” which is not in the Constitution.

[...]

The Supreme Court in effect added an exception clause to the First Amendment. The exception clause in effect said you are free to worship, pray, or read the Bible except if you are on school property.

– Excerpted from http://www.free2pray.info/

This omits some significant history, including the Edgerton Bible Case in 1890.  In any case, as I pointed out in the prior article, you won’t find much prior to Reconstruction.

Slightly more interesting is the 1620 date.  That’s clearly prior to the founding of this country, omits the natives (who had a variety of different religions), ignores the fact that the Pilgrims were citizens of a country with a state religion (England), and conflates their school prayer with school prayer in U.S. public schools.

Is it all the atheists fault?  Americans United for Separation of Church and State provides the following list of organizations that oppose government-sponsored prayer in public schools.  I took the time to look up a couple of the organizations and link to their policies.  I may add more as time passes.

• American Baptist Churches, USA [policy]
• American Jewish Congress [*]
• Anti-Defamation League [policy] [*]
• Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty [summary] [*]
• Central Conference of American Rabbis [*]
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [policy]
• Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers) [*]
• General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
• Mennonite Central Committee
• National Council of Churches
• National Council of Jewish Women [*]
• National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council
• North American Council for Muslim Women
• Presbyterian Church (USA) [*]
• Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association
• Soka Gakkai International – U.S.A.
• The Church of Christ, Scientist
• The Episcopal Church, USA [*]
• The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
• Union of American Hebrew Congregations [*]
• Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
• Unitarian Universalist Association [*]
• United Church of Christ [*]
• United Methodist Church
• Women of Reform Judaism, The Federation of Temple Sisterhoods [*]

[*] This group is a signatory of the following letter: Leave No Child Behind.  Other groups not mentioned above are also signatories of this letter.  One excerpt from this letter:

[...] current law quite sufficiently provides adequate constitutional and statutory protections against violations of the right of voluntary prayer.

What’s Desired?

It seems that some people explicitly want the return of daily devotionals.  This can take different forms.

• Opening the school day with a prayer and / or a Bible reading.
• Allowing the use of religious education in the classroom.

While there is a wide spectrum between these, and there are other suggestions such as adding a “moment of silence,” these are the positions I see advocated most frequently.  I’ll only discuss the first position here, since it is “weaker” than the second.

Should we open the school day with a Christian prayer or Bible reading?

As I pointed out previously, case law against this goes back to Weiss v. District Board, 1890.  You can read more about this case here, on the Wisconsin courts site.

I’ll focus on Bible reading, since the arguments against prayer are largely parallel.

The difficulty arises from the fact that there are different translations of the Christian Bible.  Catholics may object to the use of translations such as the King James Version, while protestants may object to the use of Catholic translations, such as the Douay-Rheims.

Am I wrong?  Consider the following two posts.  The first is by the creator of the group.

By saying “The teaching of the entire Bible and only the Bible..” means that we believe that only the Bible should be taught – not any other book such as the Catholic Bible. Also, the entire Bible, not just parts of the Bible.

– Post in discussion thread “Can someone please explain this group to me?” by Peter Ruchti, the creator of the group, on 3/15/2009

Ther Bible is the Word of God
He is truth and His word is flawless and perfect.
The Catholic faith is all about idolatry and is THE FALSE CHURCH AND DEAD AND VOID OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD WHICH IS TRUTH AND SPIRIT.

– Post in discussion thread “Can someone please explain this group to me?” by LM, on 3/15/2009.

Note that Peter refers to “the Bible,” and clearly intends to differentiate it from the Catholic Bible.  One is left wondering which translation he means, but we can assume it is the King James Version.

It might interest many of these people to know that this country was settled by diverse groups with diverse translations.  In particular, the Mayflower pilgrims, as well as the Massachusetts Bay colonists led by John “city on the hill” Winthrop, used the Geneva Bible.  King James disliked the Calvinist and Puritan nature of the annotations present in the Geneva Bible, and this led, in part, to his commissioning a new translation to replace it.  Interestingly, it is unknown which version of the Bible was present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

(Incidentally, those who object to the new translations with more direct language might also be interested to know that the Geneva Bible used by the Puritans contained simpler and more direct translations than the (later) King James Version.)

As I write this, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the fastest-growing Christian denomination in the United States, and has a strong claim as a truly American religion.  Should we read from the Book of Mormon?

In some places in the United States the Catholic population is the majority, or is soon to be the majority due to immigration.  Should we read from the Catholic Bible?

Should read from the Qur’an?  What about the Upanishads?  Should we let the majority of people in a school district determine the text?

As for opening the school day with a prayer, recall that in Engel v. Vitale, 1962, and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 2000, it was religious groups who objected to school sponsorship of prayer, and not secular groups or atheists.  Recall the list of groups supporting the ban on school-sponsored prayer given earlier in this article.

People want their specific point of view taught in school, or at least want the school curriculum brought in line with their point of view.

Kids are totallly lost now a days because they don’t know who God is, they don’t know how to pray. They are left out to watch violence on video’s and tv. Their views in
school are contrary sometimes to what we are teaching at him in the house. By introducing God’s word then they will start friendship with all not only few…..there will be PEACE!!!

– wall post by MCM, 3/4/2009

Reasons?

Some people clearly want all children exposed to some form of Christianity in an organized fashion, rather than through interaction with their peers or parents.  They wish this even (and particularly) if the parents are not telling their children about Christianity or are not Christian.

I think the worse thing they ever did was take prayer out of school, children now have no leadership of the Lord at school and a lot of them have NONE at home, where does this leave our children.

– wall post by WEN, 3/4/2009

In this sense they want the government to “pick a winner” and promote their religion in the public schools.  Children who object or whose parents object can go elsewhere.

First of all” There are no atheists in fox holes”. I joined this cause because I was invited by my Preacher. I grew up with prayer in school! I’ve been a Police Officer for a long time and I spend alot of time dealing with our youth. Prayer in the schools can only help!

Atheists are offended because this cause does not endorse freedom of religion. What does school prayer have to do with freedom of religion? God says we are to Worship him and to serve him and to spead his gospel. If you haven’t noticed the problems in our society are a direct result of a breakdown in the schools and Churches because we are afraid of those who want to claim that our worshipping God or praying in schools is violating there beliefs.

Those that claim to be offended by this then don’t join this cause you are of no use and simply a tool of satan. Trust me satan doesn’t want prayer in schools either. With God back in ours schools our children wouldn’t be killing and raping each other and assulting our teachers.

I’ll pray for prayer back in our schools and for the salvation of all of those atheists.

– wall post by GK, 3/17/2009

It`s really sad to send your kids to school for them to be denied to even mention God! We pay our taxes and yet only 4% of Americans are atheists 86% believe in God,why do we even listen to the 4%? If we want Christ in schools then we have to resort to private schools,WHY? Let the 4% go to private schools!

– wall post by SR, 3/15/2009

Two reasons are commonly given for this position: freedom of speech and morality.

I completely agree with putting Christ back into the school. I feel that it was wrong to stop this in the first place. The way that I see it is that this is America, and America is suppose to be all about freedom of speech. The ones that believe should be allowed to speak of Christ in School and the ones that don’t believe don’t have to speak of christ then. But don’t give into them and let them have their way while us that do have to stop what we do believe in.

– wall post by AFK, 3/19/2009

When Christ was allowedf to walk the halls, there were no school shootings. When we were allowed to pray in school before test, the graduation rate was higher. When Christ was allowed on the bus, children went to school everyday and did not drop ouy. Teens were not getting pregnant. Gangs were not heard of. Truancy officers were not needed because if a child skipped school their mother knew about it by 10:00am. WE pay in God we Trsut. Howeverm we only trust him and need him in a time of crisis. Keep blocking cvhrist out and we will keep building prisons.

– wall post by SDJ, 3/12/2009

(I will deal with the morality issue in the next section.)

The relevant amendment is the First:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

– First Amendment, The Constitution of the United States of America

The First Amendment enshrines a right (freedom of speech) by restricting what the government can do.  It is not absolute.  Further, in this case the idea is to use the First Amendment to impose a requirement on the government and its agents (teachers and school staff).  Wouldn’t Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Sikhs, and the wide variety of atheists also be allowed to apply this argument and be heard?  The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause would seem to imply they would.  If all opposing viewpoints were heard every day in a large school, what other education could take place?

Consequences?

The site www.free2pray.com has a page listing consequences of removing school prayer.  Let’s look at three they cite.

• Teen pregnancy rates have gone up 500% since 1962.
• The divorce rate is so high that many young children don’t really understand what a family is.
• Violent Crimes have risen steadily since the early 60’s, and our prison system is bursting at the seams.

Teen Pregnancy

I can’t find any support for this figure.  In actuality, teen birth rates have been steadily declining since their peak in the 1950’s (see here).  The percentage of births out of wedlock has risen and perhaps this is what they are citing.  But even so, you are describing a percentage of a smaller number.  Being very generous and using the 1950 and 2000 numbers one can arrive at a four-fold increase in teen births out of wedlock; moving forward to 1962 does not help their case, since the teen birth rate rose between 1950 and 1962, hitting their all-time high of almost one-in-ten of all teen girls in 1957.  The primary factor in the rise of births out of wedlock appears to actually be fewer teens getting married, even when they become pregnant.  The age of first marriage has increased significantly since the 1950’s.

Another source is the CDC, which published this study.  It only goes back to 1976, which is when they began doing national estimates (and excludes the 1957 data, in particular), but they report the following.

Teenage pregnancy rates dropped 38 percent overall from 1990-2004. The rate fell from its historic peak in 1990, 116.8 per 1,000 aged 15-19 years, to 72.2 in 2004. The 2004 pregnancy rate for teenagers was the lowest ever reported since the national series of estimates began in 1976.

– Excerpted from NCHS Data on Teen Pregnancy

Don’t be confused by the above studies; in some cases they are measuring different things, such as birth vs. pregnancy rates. Nevertheless the overall message is that fewer teens, as a percentage of the population, are getting pregnant now than in prior years. Keep in mind also the effect of the age of first marriage; teens married at 17, 18, or 19 are being counted, and that was more common in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Divorce Rate

It seems curious to imply that this is the result of the 1962 ruling, and not the introduction of no-fault divorce in the early 1970’s.  In any case divorce rates have been in decline since the 1990’s, even in Nevada.  See the CDC page on marriage and divorce.

Violent Crime

Yes, the prison system in the United States is a mess.  What about violent crime rates?  The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics tells a different story.  Of course, that data only goes back to 1973, but note the reversal of the trend in 1994.  Should we attribute this to Bill Clinton?

Effect?

Others cite school shootings.  As the lack of school-sponsored prayer has no demonstrated connection with a rise in gun violence in schools, it does not seem that the imposition of school-sponsored prayer would end the violence.  In many cases student violence seems to arise from frustration.  It is therefore conceivable that school-sponsored prayer might exacerbate student frustration if students feel disenfranchised by the promotion of a different religion than their own.

In short, there are many factors behind all these statistics.  No convincing case is made that state-sponsored school prayer would have either a positive or negative effect on any of this.

My Motives

So why am I bothering to write any of this?  First, I believe there is both intentional and unintentional misinformation on this issue, and that groups such as the Facebook group perpetuate this.  Second, I believe that if many of these groups were to achieve their end, the result would be both divisive and damaging, as I believe I have outlined above.

As someone with a personal interest in public education I am concerned about the effect should the government, at any level, be allowed to provide religious teaching.  If you are religious you should be concerned, too.  The demographics of this country change, people move, and religions rise and fall in number.

Recall the posts above on Catholicism, such as “The Catholic faith is all about idolatry [...].”  Then keep in mind that between 1/5 and 1/4 of the population of this country is Catholic.

In short, I do not feel that the proponents of school-sponsored prayer have made their case that the benefits of their policy are sufficient to justify the change and the resulting discord.

Conclusion

While I may not agree with everything Joseph Schumpeter had to say, we would do well to remember the following insight.

Since the first thing man will do for his ideal or interest is to lie, we shall expect, and as a matter of fact we find, effective information is almost always adulterated or selective [...].

– Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy