Ruling on Student Prayers
The Supreme Court’s ruling may not be as sweeping as “High Court Bars Student Prayers at School Events” (June 20) makes it seem. As Justice John Paul Stevens noted, it is impossible to take this case out of context. Santa Fe, Texas, is a heavily Baptist town with a long history of supporting prayer in public schools. The policy, which allowed for the election of a single student to deliver the so-called invocation for the entire year, virtually guaranteed that a Baptist would be elected and that he or she would choose to deliver a prayer.
Had the school chosen to provide an open forum prior to games, in which speakers could deliver messages of their choosing, which might include religious messages, then the policy might have withstood attack. Had the policy arisen in a town such as Los Angeles, which has no real majority, it might also have been affirmed. While the Bill of Rights has allowed those with thin skins to suppress popular and sometimes common-sense policies, it is about protecting the rights of those with beliefs that do not command a majority. The court correctly decided this case under all the circumstances.
PAUL GUELPA
Long Beach
*
I am a Christian who stands in support of the Supreme Court ruling on student-led prayer. My freedom to choose when and how to practice my faith is dependent upon my willingness to protect those same rights for others. I celebrate the participation of any who want to enjoy a high school football game (for example) without having to sit through “my” prayer because they are outnumbered.
The court’s majority opinion is the opposite of hostile to religious practice. Indeed, it portrays the type of thinking that would protect the right of my children and grandchildren to serve their Lord in their unique and individual ways. For the religious who automatically oppose such rulings, ask yourselves this honestly: Is it the “ways of faith” or the status quo that you long to protect?
KEVIN K. CLARK
Ventura
*
The Times’ June 20 editorial states the Supreme Court ruling, “underscored by nearly 40 years of precedent,” will help settle a divisive church-and-state issue. What about the nearly 200 years of precedent prior to the 1962 ruling regarding school prayer? Our Constitution simply says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” How giving an invocation or prayer at a high school athletic event can be construed to mean that a congressional law respecting the establishment of a religion has been invoked is beyond me.
Thomas Jefferson, to whom the term “wall of separation” has been attributed, meant for that “wall” to protect churches from the intrusion of government. Jefferson, at one time, recommended that the government purchase Bibles for schools. If Jefferson was concerned about the separation of church and state, why would he consider such an obvious religious intrusion into the educational system?
JIM O’BRIEN
Simi Valley
*
One wonders if George W. Bush and others so in favor of prayer at school events have read their Bibles. Matthew 6:5-6 states that praying should be done in a closet with the door closed, and those who pray in public are hypocrites.
MONA DAVIS
Cypress