Court upholds mandatory school prayer

Don't be fooled by the dominionists. Their intolerance is one of the most profound oppressors of working-class America ever to bip along. That's how they find a home among economic conservatives. When you read their speeches in which they distort religion to claim that progressive economic policies are unbiblical and that it's the duty of lower economic groups to accept this "fact", it all comes together: Religious extremism was created largely as an excuse for greed.

Religion itself isn't extremism. But when you try doing an end-run around the Constitution to use the government to impose your religion on unwilling subjects, that's extremism. So it is with legislation in recent years requiring public school students to observe a "moment of silence." I've stated before that not only is this a thinly veiled cloak for mandatory school prayer (with the intent on being shaped into the dominionists' desires), but the way it's done may actually violate the beliefs of some religions. To some faiths, it's a moment of blasphemy.

Laws requiring a "moment of silence" are getting more common and more brazen. But this also makes lawsuits more inevitable - as what happened in Texas recently.

Shockingly, however, U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn has just upheld the Texas law as constitutional! The court claimed the effect of this law isn't "to advance or inhibit religion." Riiiiight. Perhaps the "moment of silence" has less of an immediate effect than what it's designed to have - but I still take issue with the notion that it has no religious effect at all, because the purpose of the law is so clear. In fact, in this case, the teacher even told the student the one-minute "moment of silence" is a "time for prayer" - lest you're naive enough to think the idea isn't intended for mandatory prayer.

Despite upholding the law, Judge Lynn admitted the law had a religious intent (if not effect). The version of the law under challenge dates only from 2003, when dominionist activism was nearing its peak. Lynn pointed out that the sponsor of the law, State Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican, had stated that the aim of the law was to establish mandatory prayer.

Why do we find this constitutionally unsound? It wasn't because someone prayed at a public school. If someone had done so independently, it wouldn't be actionable. It's because the government is sponsoring and mandating religion. What's much more offensive is that the activity is backed by conservatives who think public policies should be guided by their interpretations of religious teachings (which they use to justify their economic rightism).

From right-wing Texas Gov. Rick Perry's comments, it's even clearer what the intent of the law is. Perry praised the law and the judge's ruling as a lesson in tolerance and personal freedom. This statement is such a ham-handed and patronizing attempt to cover up the fact that the law takes away personal freedom and promotes intolerance of others' beliefs that anyone ought to see right through it. In the "war is peace" Bizarro World of BushAmerica, however, who knows?

Officials for the Carrollton-Farmers Branch school district near Dallas described how the "moment of silence" is carried out. Its lockstep aspect seems particularly chilling. Many students don't want to be made to feel as if school is a place where they're compelled to believe a certain way. If I had experienced a forced "moment of silence" at a public school, I'd be the one suing.

(Source: http://www.kypost.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=da175fe5-921e-416d-beb6-4060b2ef2b10;
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-silence_05met.ART0.North.Edition1.37cc71f.html)