Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, July 18, 1993 TAG: 9307200573
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: C-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CARROLL SMITH
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
He also tries to equate protests against the Vietnam War with the aims of pro-prayer activists. But the anti-war protesters, whose rights were upheld by court decisions cited by Sekulow, were not trying to have their demonstrations made a part of a public ceremony. If they had made such an attempt, I feel sure that it would have been denied. I do agree that religious students (or non-students) should have the same rights of free speech as others.
The crucial point is in relation to speech during a public ceremony (i.e., government-supported) and who is speaking. Since Sekulow writes about commencement ceremonies, I will be limited to those occasions to reply to his distinction between public speech and private speech. Clearly, listing a prayer in the program, or having it delivered by an official of the public institution, would be constitutionally objectionable. However, he argues that talking about religion by a student participant is a guaranteed exercise of free speech. If this is a spontaneous expression by one student, I would have to agree. The sticky point comes when this is a planned prayer involving a large number of students.
The anti-war protesters mentioned by Sukelow did try to disrupt meetings and ceremonies, and typically were removed from the gathering. So, might not these student-initiated prayers be similarly disruptive of the proceedings? This particularly would be the case if the other students (exercising their right to free speech) were to sing, shout or otherwise show their disagreement. This certainly has the potential for becoming an intolerable situation.
One of the usual positions taken by people like Sukelow is represented by " . . . and those students who do not wish to participate are neither compelled to do so nor suffer any consequences for failing to do so." Although not specifically mentioned by him, I feel certain that he and his supporters have a special kind of prayer in mind. They do not want just any old kind of prayer: Buddhist, Hebrew, Moslem, etc., or even many Christian prayers that are not fundamentalist Protestant (his characterization). Does he consider that these other students must wait through a prayer that they may find objectionable? Would he be equally happy for his people to have to wait through a Shinto prayer? I think not.
There is also the difference between talking about religion and engaging in its practice. It would be appropriate for a commencement speaker to talk about the Vietnam War and equally appropriate to talk about religion. The public use of the symbols, rituals and beliefs of a particular religion is quite a different matter, and it is precisely this that Sukelow and like-minded people are after.
I have never understood why it is so important for people like Sukelow to pray at commencements. These ceremonies only last about two hours. Even if someone goes to one once every year, there are still 364 days plus 22 hours to pray. Is this not enough time to do all the praying that anyone could wish for? They must have another goal in mind: to have their brand of religion given public recognition. Maybe some of them would like to have a state-supported religion, which might not be such a bad idea after all. Just make sure, of course, that it is my religion that is state-supported.
The United States has always been a religiously diverse country. It is becoming more so, with increased probability for controversy over religion in public. Why can we not keep religion in the home, church, synagogue, temple, mosque, cathedral or whatever? Then everyone is free to engage in his or her constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion. No conflict; everyone is happy. This seems such a fair, simple and reasonable solution that I cannot understand how anyone can oppose it.
Carroll Smith of Christiansburg is a psychologist.
by CNB