Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 27, 1991 TAG: 9103270405
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The case the court agreed to decide involves a Rhode Island high school that invited a rabbi to offer an invocation and benediction at a graduation exercise two years ago. A graduating student and her parents filed suit, contending that mentioning God at such an event violated the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of religion.
This case differs in several ways from other court battles involving religious expression in public schools. First, no one is forced to attend graduation, as they are the classes that prepare one to graduate. In addition, the graduates are mature enough to make choices about whether they will participate in prayers.
Second, parents and other adults are present at high school graduation, which dilutes any coercive effect one might feel.
Third, while there is much debate concerning attempts to establish "politically correct" speech and thinking in academic circles, this case appears designed to establish "spiritually correct" thinking and speech and, therefore, qualifies as censorship.
It is doubtful that a student, or anyone else who used God's name in an idiomatic or irreverent way - such as, "Oh God, I never thought this day would come" - would face a court challenge. It seems that only when God is spoken of with reverence and respect do the theological thought police intervene.
As constitutional attorney John Whitehead said (in his book, "The Rights of Religious Persons in Public Education"), "While the tradition of graduation prayers predates the founding of America, there seems to be no evidence that the framers saw such acts as harmful . . . . Thomas Jefferson saw no inconsistency between the doctrine of religious liberty and the practice of prayer at a public school graduation service. One of the earliest `Order of Exercises' for the University of Virginia is dated June 26, 1850. The program lists the order of events, which was to begin with prayer."
In case one thinks this to be an antiquated practice, it also should be noted that at the University of Virginia's annual Founder's Day Celebration to honor Jefferson (who wrote the Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom), the program begins with an invocation.
In a 1983 case concerning whether it was constitutional to pay legislative chaplains with public funds, Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for the majority, said, "To invoke Divine guidance . . . is not . . . an `establishment' of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the people of this country." If such logic can apply to state and federal legislators, why not to graduation ceremonies?
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has written concerning invocations that they tend to "solemniz[e] public occasions . . . express . . . confidence in the future, and encourag[e] what is worthy of appreciation in society."
Graduation ceremonies do not afford opportunities for coercion,nor is there a potential for religious indoctrination, so it would appear that graduation invocations and benedictions, be they from rabbis, priests, pastors or other clergy, can pass constitutional muster.
Attorney Whitehead summarized well the case for preserving the prayer tradition: "The fact that the practice is performed once a year, to a different audience, made up of primarily adults who voluntarily attend, is not a part of the school's day-to-day curricular activities, is performed in the context of a ceremonial public event, is merely an acknowledgment of religious heritage and tradition, and has the purpose of solemnizing the event and creating an air of dignity serve[s] to refute the contention that there is an effect of endorsement [of religion]. The prayers are merely too incidental and remote to be said to create a `symbolic union' between religion and the state." Los Angeles Times Syndicate
by CNB