<---back to Words of Wisdom index

School prayer advocates often insist that all they want is to have a "non-sectarian" prayer. Yet this is impossible; no prayer can be constructed that does not have theological and theistic assumptions and implications for a particular religious creed.

Any legislative effort to make these prayers public not only violates the principle of separation between church and state, it is also a deliberate formula for creating prejudice against those who have different faiths, or no faith.

Aside from the Constitutional problems, the push for prayer in the public schools ignores a fundamental question that must be raised: If forced school prayer is not a vehicle for enforcing conformity of thought on religion, what is the point? Is it supposed to have some physical effect? If so, then this raises the issue of whether there is any validity in prayer. This is a key question. If our public schools are supposed to teach students to think and reason, shouldn't the efficacy of prayer be objectively verifiable? After all, our schools teach chemistry rather than alchemy, and astronomy rather than astrology. Shouldn't we make a concerted effort to determine if prayer actually works, as believers contend, before demanding that it become part of the school curriculum?

Here is a simple test that should solve the problem once and for all. Those who believe in the power of prayer should jump at the opportunity to silence their critics once and for all.

Since terrorism is incompatible with the traditional notions of an all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing god, let all those who believe in this god pray for an end to terrorism on a certain day, a day of their choice. Let the leaders of the various world religions get together and agree upon a date for this prayer. If these leaders are concerned with the issue of terrorism and truly believe in the power of prayer, this would be a marvelous opportunity for them to show their love of humanity. It would also give them a powerful weapon against those skeptical of religion.

Moreover, if the god they believe in actually exists, and possesses the traits believers insist he possesses, then he could not fail to act and grant their requests. After all, he possesses the power, wisdom, and moral excellence to do so, doesn't he?

Even if terrorism were to cease after this concerted prayer effort, this would not necessarily prove the efficacy of prayer. There could be many non-religious factors in why terrorism ceased on that particular day. Nonetheless, if this were to occur, it could prove to be a powerful propaganda weapon for religion in general.

On the other hand, if terrorism continues beyond the agreed upon date, this would prove either that prayer does not work, or that the god people believe in, even if he exists, does not respond to our requests.
Do believers in prayer possess the honesty and integrity to put their beliefs to this test? Or do they have ulterior motives, such as those suggested earlier, that they are not disclosing?

If these believers cry out, as they surely will, that "you cannot test god," then they are tacitly admitting that belief in god and prayer is purely subjective. And, if they cannot be objectively proved, then they have no place in the school curriculum, for beliefs in god and prayer would be no more intellectually justifiable than belief in witches, fairies, ghosts or other supernatural agencies. While people have every right to believe in whatever their imaginations can conjure up, they do not have the right to insist that everyone who disagrees with them give up their valuable learning time to accommodate beliefs that have no foundation in provable fact.

Believers will no doubt trot out the old "free will" argument at this point. They will claim that since we humans have free will, anything bad that happens to us is our own fault, or is the result of human evil. This argument is a classic religious red herring. It doesn't matter if we have "free will" or not. God still is supposed to stop evil when he sees it occurring. What kind of parents would fail to stop their children from doing evil acts if they knew in advance what they were going to do? Shouldn't we at least hold god to these standards, if not higher ones? After all, his morality is supposed to be so vastly superior to human morality.

Moreover, how does the believer account for the countless natural evils that occur in the world, including earthquakes, tornadoes and floods? How do believers account for the various diseases that cause untold pain and suffering? To see the foolishness and evil of what such believers are saying, one need only to visit the nearest childrens hospital to see the many suffering and deformed babies that their god has created. Would they say to the mother that their babys suffering is due to sin?

Only people who have divested themselves of all human sentiment could argue in this way. Yet that is exactly where the free will argument must lead.

If deprived of their preferred sectarian prayers, religionists then fall back on the argument of having a "moment of silence" in the schools. They insist that children have the right to pray in school. No one should be misled by this tactic; students already have that right. The entire issue has become a political football tossed about by the religious right-wing. Many of their attempts to legislate religious belief have positive sounding titles. For example, Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Oklahoma) in October 2001 introduced the "Religious Speech Amendment." This was Istooks third attempt to introduce mandatory school prayer. In 1998, he introduced the benevolent sounding "Religious Freedom Amendment" which conveniently ignored the fact that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution already guarantees freedom of and from religion. Istooks earlier amendment, although receiving a 224-203 majority, was defeated due to the necessary two-thirds majority requirement. However, the fact that it received the number of votes it did shows that the majority of the members of the House of Representatives either does not understand or does not appreciate the First Amendment to the Constitution they have sworn to uphold.

The inevitable results of such legislation would be to force school sponsored prayer on all students. It would also increase divisiveness and animosity between different religious groups and encourage their fighting among themselves for governmental largesse.

The school prayer issue is nothing more than a concerted effort by Christian extremists to force everyone else to listen to their particular prayers to their particular god. The "moment of silence" is a means for them to introduce their real agenda in an underhanded, sub-rosa manner.

God believers have the right to believe in anything they choose. They do not have the right to force it on everyone else. To do so is more than a rude imposition of their particular religious values. It is downright un-American.

<---back to Words of Wisdom index