Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[Ken]

Is that what Engel v. Vitale was about?
How many states is "many states"?

Steven Engel was a Jewish father in New York who brought suit against the state of New York on behalf of a bunch of other Jewish families who claimed that the state-required daily (Christian) school prayer (and having their children forced by the government to recite Christian prayers) violated their religious freedom under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed that it was an unconstitutional violation of their religious freedom to have Christian prayers forced onto their Jewish children in school and struck down mandatory school prayer and school-led prayers. They didn't strike down prayer in schools, anyone can still pray in schools on their own. They only struck down the official school-led prayers. There have been a bunch of subsequent cases that have refined and clarified this position.

I don't know the breakdown of how the various school prayer laws existed in the various states prior to Engle. It is actually kind of hard to research that topic. I believe a majority of states actually had mandatory school prayer written into state law while most other states simply allowed it and some had recommended official prayers but it was up to local school districts and schools to actually require prayer, which many if not most did anyway notwithstanding any state requirement. In some states there was an official state prayer. In others I think local schools and officials had flexibility and some did other things like read Bible verses and such as well as prayer.

It is kind of a distinction without a difference if you lived in a state with mandatory school prayer written into state law, or a state which merely allowed it and the local school district or school made it mandatory. It amounts to exactly the same thing for students and families.

Engel v. Vitale was not about any kind of prayer required by the State of NY. The only way any kind of prayer in this case could be claimed to be "state-required" is if you call the local school board a state.

In the instant case, students were not forced to recite the prayer, and in fact could be excused from the room if requested by their parents.

It's my understanding that in 1962 only 13 states required prayer or Bible reading in public schools. That's far from a majority.

All 50 states had official state-sponsored school prayer prior to 1962. In many of them it was the local school districts making the mandate not the state legislature. But that is still the "state" when we are distinguishing between church and state. School districts are established by the states and delegated their authority under state law.

Are you advocating a return to pre-1962 America when kids had to recite official government prayer every morning?

[ken_sylvania]

Steven Engel was a Jewish father in New York who brought suit against the state of New York on behalf of a bunch of other Jewish families who claimed that the state-required daily (Christian) school prayer (and having their children forced by the government to recite Christian prayers) violated their religious freedom under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed that it was an unconstitutional violation of their religious freedom to have Christian prayers forced onto their Jewish children in school and struck down mandatory school prayer and school-led prayers. They didn't strike down prayer in schools, anyone can still pray in schools on their own. They only struck down the official school-led prayers. There have been a bunch of subsequent cases that have refined and clarified this position.

I don't know the breakdown of how the various school prayer laws existed in the various states prior to Engle. It is actually kind of hard to research that topic. I believe a majority of states actually had mandatory school prayer written into state law while most other states simply allowed it and some had recommended official prayers but it was up to local school districts and schools to actually require prayer, which many if not most did anyway notwithstanding any state requirement. In some states there was an official state prayer. In others I think local schools and officials had flexibility and some did other things like read Bible verses and such as well as prayer.

It is kind of a distinction without a difference if you lived in a state with mandatory school prayer written into state law, or a state which merely allowed it and the local school district or school made it mandatory. It amounts to exactly the same thing for students and families.

Engel v. Vitale was not about any kind of prayer required by the State of NY. The only way any kind of prayer in this case could be claimed to be "state-required" is if you call the local school board a state.

In the instant case, students were not forced to recite the prayer, and in fact could be excused from the room if requested by their parents.

It's my understanding that in 1962 only 13 states required prayer or Bible reading in public schools. That's far from a majority.

All 50 states had official state-sponsored school prayer prior to 1962. In many of them it was the local school districts making the mandate not the state legislature. But that is still the "state" when we are distinguishing between church and state. School districts are established by the states and delegated their authority under state law.

Are you advocating a return to pre-1962 America when kids had to recite official government prayer every morning?

You said you thought "a majority of states actually had mandatory school prayer written into state law." There is no way that you were referring to local school districts.

I think that Engel v. Vitale was wrongly decided both constitutionally and morally.

Is it your position that the current situation of teachers being forbidden to pray with their students is the highest ideal and serves God's greatest purposes for this nation?

[Ken]

Engel v. Vitale was not about any kind of prayer required by the State of NY. The only way any kind of prayer in this case could be claimed to be "state-required" is if you call the local school board a state.

In the instant case, students were not forced to recite the prayer, and in fact could be excused from the room if requested by their parents.

It's my understanding that in 1962 only 13 states required prayer or Bible reading in public schools. That's far from a majority.

All 50 states had official state-sponsored school prayer prior to 1962. In many of them it was the local school districts making the mandate not the state legislature. But that is still the "state" when we are distinguishing between church and state. School districts are established by the states and delegated their authority under state law.

Are you advocating a return to pre-1962 America when kids had to recite official government prayer every morning?

You said you thought "a majority of states actually had mandatory school prayer written into state law." There is no way that you were referring to local school districts.

I think that Engel v. Vitale was wrongly decided both constitutionally and morally.

Is it your position that the current situation of teachers being forbidden to pray with their students is the highest ideal and serves God's greatest purposes for this nation?

I was mistaken about the state law part. But mandatory school prayer was pretty universal across the country prior to 1962 whether or not it was required by state law or local school policies.

My position is that requiring students to recite the same identical rote prayer every day from Kindergarten through 12th grade denigrates actual prayer and makes it meaningless. For the most part, students would not actually be praying, they would mostly just be mouthing meaningless (to them) words that someone else put into their mouths. If you watch bored students recite by rote the pledge of allegiance on a daily basis for a decade or so you will realize how meaningless those requirements are. Adding prayer back to that would make it even more meaningless and subject to ridicule.

Do you think that being required to recite the same rote prayer every day for 13 years is what Jesus had in mind when he instructed us how to pray?

And no, I don't think teachers should be leading school prayers or any other religious services with students when they are on the clock and being paid by public taxpayer dollars. They are, of course, free do so as much as they want on their own time. And no, I don't think God has any purpose at all for this "nation". I think God is interested in people not nations.

[joey_the_ox]

We are going around in circles. What do YOU think Jesus meant in Matthew 5 and do you think publicly lead government run prayers over the intercom in a public school is what he was talking about or not?

There are two separate questions. First, whether government-run prayer is legal. And second, whether it is biblical.

I was just pointing out that you were giving hypotheses in two different directions. If synagogues were considered public places as you suggest, then that does fit with your reading of Matthew 6:5-6 as Biblical guidance discouraging public prayer (because the passage mentions synagogues). But then you hypothesized that the mention of synagogues in the passage was talking about standing on the steps and being seen by the public outside, not what was going on inside the synagogue. So were synagogues public places that thus fell under the discouragement of public prayer (by your reading), or were they not?

As for what I think, the only kind of prayer encouraged by the passage is to "go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret" which would rule out synagogues, making the discussion of their public/private nature somewhat of a moot point. But I would argue that the point of the passage is what is in the heart and motivations of the person who is praying. Most people recognize this since they do not consider the passage to be ruling out public prayers in church, for example. (But it would certainly be possible for someone who is praying in church to be in violation of the spirit of what Jesus is saying here.)

On this reading, using the passage as a proof-text for a political argument is missing the point. If it can be used as a proof-text in the manner you used it, then it could also be used to rule out prayers in church. Trying to use the passage to leave in "prayers in church" while saying that "prayers in school" ("government-led" or not, whatever that means) are "in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus and the scripture" as you did is simply not supported by the text - the distinctions are not there.

By saying this I'm not making a positive argument for "government-led prayers in school." I'm just disagreeing with how you used Matthew 6:5-6.

[Ken]

We are going around in circles. What do YOU think Jesus meant in Matthew 5 and do you think publicly lead government run prayers over the intercom in a public school is what he was talking about or not?

There are two separate questions. First, whether government-run prayer is legal. And second, whether it is biblical.

I was just pointing out that you were giving hypotheses in two different directions. If synagogues were considered public places as you suggest, then that does fit with your reading of Matthew 6:5-6 as Biblical guidance discouraging public prayer (because the passage mentions synagogues). But then you hypothesized that the mention of synagogues in the passage was talking about standing on the steps and being seen by the public outside, not what was going on inside the synagogue. So were synagogues public places that thus fell under the discouragement of public prayer (by your reading), or were they not?

As for what I think, the only kind of prayer encouraged by the passage is to "go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret" which would rule out synagogues, making the discussion of their public/private nature somewhat of a moot point. But I would argue that the point of the passage is what is in the heart and motivations of the person who is praying. Most people recognize this since they do not consider the passage to be ruling out public prayers in church, for example. (But it would certainly be possible for someone who is praying in church to be in violation of the spirit of what Jesus is saying here.)

On this reading, using the passage as a proof-text for a political argument is missing the point. If it can be used as a proof-text in the manner you used it, then it could also be used to rule out prayers in church. Trying to use the passage to leave in "prayers in church" while saying that "prayers in school" ("government-led" or not, whatever that means) are "in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus and the scripture" as you did is simply not supported by the text - the distinctions are not there.

By saying this I'm not making a positive argument for "government-led prayers in school." I'm just disagreeing with how you used Matthew 6:5-6.

Really what you have (or had) with mandatory school prayer was a whole second-level effect with respect to Matthew 6:5.

What you actually had was politicians performatively pushing for school prayer mandates to gain favor and votes from their evangelical constituencies. In other words, they weren't just praying in public themselves for show, they were publicly wielding the power of the state to force others to pray in public for show.

There is still plenty of prayer in school. Especially around exam times and sporting events! I just think the former laws that mandated organized official group prayer in school were irretrievably flawed from both a constitutional perspective and a religious perspective.

[temporal1]

This discussion is now focused on forced prayer.
i’m not sure about it, i mean, i’m not sure it was ever forced, or rarely forced, or other.
The Kansas case is not about prayer.

It makes me sad when i see early school texts that include passages from scriptures interwoven in all subjects.
To think, early-on, scriptures were respected and shared in the everyday matters of ed, and life.
This is not prayer. It was part of education.

It was long-abandoned, the world is not better for it.

i also regret schools abandoned German in textbooks. a valuable language.
Latin is no longer offered.

Sadly, SJWs take up a lot of time, energy, resources.

[Robert]

In this discussion, Ken is telling them to, by all means, leave.

Please remember to speak for yourself and not for someone else.

[temporal1]

In this discussion, Ken is telling them to, by all means, leave.

Please remember to speak for yourself and not for someone else.

no problem. i did not intend conjecture. i was lazy in not quoting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Ame ... nstitution

A teacher, while an employee of the state is still an individual with rights.

And those rights are balanced against the right of students (and their families) to be free from religious coercion and various religious influences while attending public schools. So public school teachers cannot:

• lead Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu etc. prayers in the classroom
• proselytize or evangelize in the classroom
• require grade or judge students dress or behavior based on religious standards (wearing, not wearing head coverings, head scarves, etc.)
• attack or denigrate other faiths in the classroom

And in this case, the teacher also cannot use religious grounds to identify/name/shame students with different names or pronouns other than those that they wish to be known by in the classroom in front of their peers.

Even if she believes that her faith directs her to do any of those things. Not when in the classroom where she has a captive audience of students who are required by law to be there and who come from all walks of life and all faiths. And where she is acting on behalf of the state in everything she does.

Teachers who are unable to avoid doing those sorts of things in public school classrooms should find other professions or teach in private religious schools where none of those restrictions apply.

[Josh]

The effect is to force Christians out of any public sphere. The question is why Ken thinks that’s a good thing.

[Ken]

In this discussion, Ken is telling them to, by all means, leave.

Please remember to speak for yourself and not for someone else.

no problem. i did not intend conjecture. i was lazy in not quoting:

A teacher, while an employee of the state is still an individual with rights.

And those rights are balanced against the right of students (and their families) to be free from religious coercion and various religious influences while attending public schools. So public school teachers cannot:

• lead Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu etc. prayers in the classroom
• proselytize or evangelize in the classroom
• require grade or judge students dress or behavior based on religious standards (wearing, not wearing head coverings, head scarves, etc.)
• attack or denigrate other faiths in the classroom

And in this case, the teacher also cannot use religious grounds to identify/name/shame students with different names or pronouns other than those that they wish to be known by in the classroom in front of their peers.

Even if she believes that her faith directs her to do any of those things. Not when in the classroom where she has a captive audience of students who are required by law to be there and who come from all walks of life and all faiths. And where she is acting on behalf of the state in everything she does.

Teachers who are unable to avoid doing those sorts of things in public school classrooms should find other professions or teach in private religious schools where none of those restrictions apply.

Yes, I think teachers should follow the law and the policy directions of their district, and if they can't do so, they should find other employment. The vast majority of conservative Christian teachers find no problem doing this. It is only a small handful out of the millions of teachers in this country who find a conflict and file these sorts of lawsuits.

Here is another example. Many conservative Christians believe there is a Biblical mandate for corporal punishment. In fact, whole books have been written on the subject and some of these books are popular in conservative circles, including some conservative Anabaptist circles. However corporal punishment is banned in many states and banned by many school districts in states where it is still allowed like Texas. In these states and districts, teachers are forbidden to spank kids. If a particular teacher happens to deeply believe in corporal punishment and his or her faith tells them that they should use corporal punishment on the children in their care to save their souls, they should still refrain and follow the law. Regardless of how much doing so conflicts with their Christian beliefs. And if they cannot do so they should seek employment in a private school that promotes spankings, rather than a public school that prohibits them.