“In God We Trust” (Or Else)

June 6, 2021June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

There are certainly plenty of wonderful individual people of faith around, including many Christians.

I feel obligated to open with this acknowledgement (disclaimer?) because my next several posts are going to focus on clashes between religious folks and public education which have been in the news recently, and it seems like every time you come across a story about someone asserting their Christian beliefs via legislation or the courts, they’re doing it for one of three reasons: (1) they want more government money for something without having to follow the same rules as everyone else, (2) they want the government to like their religion best and tell everyone about it more often because that’s “freedom of religion,” or (3) they want to be horrible to some group of people everyone else is supposed to be kind to.

All in all, it doesn’t paint a very flattering picture of the group as a whole. Then again, we’ve seen their voting habits, so…

Texas Demands Empty Proclamations of Faith Without Substance

The Texas State Legislature has passed a bill requiring that any public schools which just happen to end up with one or more “In God We Trust” signs in their possession post them as prominently as possible. (As of this writing, it’s waiting on the Governor’s signature.) Presumably, they’re hoping this will pass constitutional muster thanks to a combination of factors:

The signage will be donated, not paid for by state tax dollars.
“In God We Trust” is our national motto – a statement of patriotism (supposedly), not religion.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that some religious statements are so drained of meaning as to no longer trigger “wall of separation” issues.

The “national motto” thing is a remnant of our 1950s terror of all things Communist. If spiritual purity and a commitment to capitalism weren’t synonyms before World War II, they certainly became so by the time of color television. The Commies were “godless,” so one way the U.S. could stand tall was to insert things like “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance and make “In God We Trust” our official national motto. (For those of you unfamiliar with the teachings of Jesus, he was very big on public rituals and governmental gestures of support.)

This conflation of all things red, white, and blue with orthodox Christianity has only intensified since. In the hearts and minds of the controlling (and voting) majority of American faithful, you can’t love Jesus and favor gun control legislation. You can’t take communion and oppose tax breaks for the uber-wealthy. And it’s easier for an elephant to go through restorative justice training than for a Black man to have equal rights in the eyes of the law because look they must have been asking for it or they wouldn’t have the mark of Cain to begin with. It’s hardly a coincidence that the same Texas legislature pushing the “In God We Trust” signage passed a law requiring sports teams to play the National Anthem before every game.

From FoxNews.com:

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick was a staunch advocate for the bill, dubbed the “Star Spangled Banner Protection Act.” The measure was first introduced in February after the Dallas Mavericks briefly stopped playing the national anthem before their home games.
“Texans are tired of sports teams that pander, insulting our national anthem and the men and women who died fighting for our flag,” Patrick said in a statement in April. “The passage of SB 4 will ensure Texans can count on hearing the Star Spangled Banner at major sports events throughout the state that are played in venues that taxpayers support. We must always remember that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Notice the title – the “Star Spangled Banner Protection Act.” Because patriotism, like faith, apparently can’t survive without government propping it up by force. Note also the claim that American soldiers fight and die “for our flag.” Not our values, not our Constitution, and certainly not our people – for the cloth and the symbols and the rituals.

I won’t even try to make sense of mandating adherence to a ritual in order to remind us we’re the land of the free. Modern GOP “reality” gives me a headache. Instead, back to those godless public schools…

“Ceremonial Deism”

In 2004, the Supreme Court heard a case involving the “under God” bit added to the Pledge in the 1950s. A non-custodial parent objected to his daughter being exposed to this daily chant of devotion in her local public school. The Court avoided deciding the case on its merits, finding instead that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue (the girl’s mother, who legally had custody, had no objections to the Pledge).
Several concurring opinions, however, indicated that had they addressed the issue itself, the Pledge would have been fine. The best-known was this bit from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor:

Given the values that the Establishment Clause was meant to serve… I believe that government can… acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution. This category of “ceremonial deism” most clearly encompasses such things as the national motto (“In God We Trust”), religious references in traditional patriotic songs such as The Star-Spangled Banner, and the words with which the Marshal of this Court opens each of its sessions (“God save the United States and this honorable Court”). These references are not minor trespasses upon the Establishment Clause to which I turn a blind eye. Instead, their history, character, and context prevent them from being constitutional violations at all.

In other words, “under God” was no more spiritual than saying “bless you” when someone sneezed or “OMG!” when you see a cool TikTok video. It was purely ceremonial, stripped of substance by repetition and years of historical impotence.

That’s what Texas is going for with their motto requirement – something barely constitutional because it lacks the slightest spiritual or religious meaning in the eyes of the courts or, presumably, the citizenry at large. Otherwise, it would be blatantly unconstitutional.

A Moment Of Pray—Er… Silence

The same basic approach was taken by numerous states when passing “moment of silence” legislation. These laws require school announcements each day to include 3-4 seconds of silence (some statutes specify a full minute) during which students can “reflect, meditate, or pray” or some variation thereof. These laws pass constitutional muster because they’re so pointless. Sure, kids can pray – but they don’t have to. Of course, they can also pray silently before the moment of silence, or after it. Kids have never ever EVER in the history of the United States been prohibited from praying silently during the school day, or from praying collectively and out loud on school grounds as long as it’s not in the middle of class. Never.

Legislators tried the same disingenuous strategy with the Ten Commandments as well, but the “HOW IS THAT RELIGIOUS?!?” argument somehow didn’t stick with that one. Opening with “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” kinda gave it away.

So if these moments and postings and such are neutered, meaningless symbols, why do some legislators fight so hard to make them happen?

Conservatives have somehow persuaded a majority of religious voters that these little token victories – the ones that slide past First Amendment concerns specifically because they lack substance – are somehow pushing Jesus back into public schools or securing God’s blessings on America. Mumbling “under God” or posting “In God We Trust” operates as a sort of code phrase, opening a spiritual portal for the Lord Almighty to swoop back in and take His rightful place in the big leather chair in the principal’s office. Statues become woodland creatures again, teenagers stop being interested in sex or any music recorded after 1957, and Common Core was never even invented, let alone mandated by many of these exact same legislators.

(OK, that last one wouldn’t be so bad.)

Let There Be (Gas)Light

In other words, the only reason to pass these laws is because those supporting them believe they ARE statements of faith. They DO matter in distinguishing America’s official religion (which they’re willing to pretend isn’t official in order to secure it as such) from all of those other belief systems (which have no place in public schools because of the First Amendment).

Religious legislators have learned to go through the motions of manufacturing pseudo-secular reasons for these theological breaches. They assert that a “moment of silence” rewrites the chemistry of the teenage brain each morning or that the Ten Commandments are purely historical context for the U.S. Constitution (despite the two having not so much as a single line in common). The trick is to do this while still celebrating the banishment of the White Witch from Narnia with their constituents, who believe their nation is so great and their God so powerful that neither can survive without such gestures.

Legislators aren’t the only ones perfectly aware of the power of these little religious “victories.” They’re a reminder to anyone outside the cell group that they don’t belong. You atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, or Muslims, along with you LGBTQ+ teens and anyone else who isn’t showing proper deference to state-mandated religious and patriotic rituals – you can stay for now, but you are outsiders. You. Don’t. Count. And honestly, you’re ruining everything for the good people – the ones who believe and do the right things, in unison, whenever we’re told.

If you think I’m overstating it, go visit another country for a few years where the dominant culture is different than yours and send your kids to school there. Or just ask one of those gay or atheist types you don’t let your kids hang out with. Maybe they’ll try to explain it.

The Governor has about ten days from the time a bill is presented to either sign or veto it in Texas. You’ll know if it becomes law because you’ll hear a cock crow three times.

A Moment of Silence: Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

May 4, 2020June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Is It Constitutional Now? How About Now? Or Now?

Three Big Things:

1. After it became clear that state-sponsored prayer was no longer a realistic option in public education, states began experimenting with the idea of a “moment of silence” during which students could pray (although no one had ever suggested that they couldn’t).

2. Alabama, in particular, kept nudging the idea forward – first it was a “moment of silence,” then a moment in which students might choose to pray, then teachers leading students in “voluntary” prayer, etc.

3. Along the way, one federal judge acknowledged that this was akin to “establishing a state religion,” but determined that was perfectly fine because states could do that. The Supreme Court agreed with the first part of that decision. They did not go along with the second.

Background

In Stone v. Graham (1980), the Court shot down the required posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. In case anyone had wondered, the Constitution still frowned on pushing religion via the public education system.

But then Reagan took office, and a conservative revolution of sorts swept the nation. At the risk of overdramatizing, the Reagan Era wasn’t just a presidential administration. As President, he championed a sort of American Exceptionalism marinated in Book-of-Revelation Sauce. The passion and righteous zeal of his adherents at times pre-empted reason, law, or precedent. It was a social movement as much as a political shift, comparable to Kennedy’s “Camelot” in impact but quite distinct in its flavor. Evangelicals were emboldened while the media and courts were demonized. Liberals weren’t just political opponents, but America’s enemies – both deceptive and deceived.

It was in this climate that Alabama decided that American Christianity could simply no longer survive without their assistance. It was time to make a statement and test the limits of this silly “wall of separation.” If their righteous fury just happened to appeal to a widely conservative voting base, well… thy will be done.

A Moment Of (Insert Options Here)

In 1978, Alabama passed legislation calling for a “moment of silence” at the start of each school day to allow “for meditation.” They weren’t alone. Many states had instituted some variety of the “moment of silence” after Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington v. Schempp (1963) had made it quite clear that overt theological indoctrination or proselytization by representatives of the State were a big “no-no” during the school day.

The “moment of silence” was thus a symbolic move as much as anything. Few non-politicians would argue that taking 5 – 7 seconds (or even the full minute required by some versions) to sit in awkward silence has a measurable impact on students’ mindsets or willingness to learn. Students, of course, had never lost the right to pray whenever and wherever they chose, so long as they did not willfully disrupt classes or become overly aggressive towards the uncooperative. (In other words, they were expected to be better behaved than their political leaders.)

What the “moment of silence” allowed legislatures to do, however, was to step right up to the line of church-state separation and dare the courts to do something about it. Legislators sponsoring these bills often said as much from the floor, dropping subtle little hints like, “We’re doing this because we want to get prayer back into public schools and we dare the courts to do anything about it.”

This reality alone would have been enough to kill any chance of proposed legislation surviving the “Lemon Test,” the first stage of which was that legislation must have a valid secular purpose. It’s possible none of them knew this, but it seems more likely they simply had ulterior motives for pushing the issue anyway. In Alabama, at least, that’s exactly what they did.

After a few years of a “moment of silence” went by without recorded difficulty, Alabama took things a step further. In 1981, the state legislature updated the statute so that the moment of silence would be presented each day as a time “for mediation and voluntary prayer.” Their momentum building, they upped their game yet again in 1982 and instructed teachers to lead “willing students” in a state-written prayer.
That part, not surprisingly, finally triggered the anticipated backlash.

Pray Or Be Prey

Ishmael Jaffree had three kids in Mobile County Public Schools – two in second grade and one in kindergarten. He protested the state-designed prayer, starting at the building level, but to no avail. Although he had plenty of established case law on his side, he didn’t initially focus on the abstract constitutional issues in play. Jaffree’s primary concern was that his kindergartener was being targeted by other kids for not participating in the prayers. His five-year-old was essentially bullied for not falling into line with state-mandated religious activities, and teachers refused to do much to stop it.

He wasn’t alone. In a similar case going on in West Virginia at the same time, a Jewish student was challenged by peers for quietly reading during the “moment of silence.” He needed to pray, they told him, or he’d “go to hell with the rest of the Jews.”

Yes, the prayer was technically voluntary – but as anyone in education knows, “voluntary” can mean many different things. As had been demonstrated a generation before when young Jehovah’s Witnesses quietly refused to pledge their allegiance to the American flag, it matters whether such choices are defended by those in power. There will always be those who hurt others verbally, physically, or otherwise for not sharing their nationalism or their faith, but there will be far more hurting going on when those in the minority are “otherized” by the State (at any level) because of their beliefs.

Establishing A State Religion?

In an interesting wrinkle, the federal district judge who heard this case as it worked its way through the system chose to ignore precedent and acknowledge that while, yes, Alabama was in effect “establishing” a state religion, they were perfectly within their rights to do so. While the federal government was constrained by the First Amendment, the states were not. “Alabama has the power to establish a State religion if it chooses to do so,” he explained. He even had a few pages of convoluted historical analysis to back this up.

Needless to say, that one caught everyone on both sides pretty much off guard. The decision was quickly reversed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the case – not surprisingly – eventually ended up in the Supreme Court. It had already been determined in the lower courts that the first version of the law – the “moment of silence” from 1978 – was constitutionally acceptable. Since no one was disputing that, the Supreme Court acknowledged then ignored it. The Court of Appeals had already declared both the second and third versions of the law unconstitutional based on having no legitimate secular purpose. The Supreme Court accepted without debate that determination regarding version three – where teaches led willing students in a “voluntary” prayer.

What remained to be determined, however, was that middle version – the one about “voluntary meditation or prayer.” Was this establishment, or would shutting it down be a violation of free exercise?

The Decision

The Court determined 6 – 3 that Alabama, in their 1981 version of the “moment of silence” law, had violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states via the Fourteenth. They cited testimony from the lawmaker sponsoring the bill, who was – to his credit – upfront about its purpose. Because the changes implemented in 1981 clearly had no valid secular purpose, as required by the “Lemon Test,” the law was unconstitutional.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote an interesting concurring opinion, supported (but not officially joined) by Justice Lewis F. Powell in his own. O’Connor began by reminding everyone of a fact often lost in the political rhetoric: nothing decided by the Court in any way limited the rights of students to pray individually or collectively at school or anywhere else, so long as they were not overly disruptive to the school day. She used the rest of her concurrence to address two facets of Wallace she believed required a little jurisprudential elaboration. In her own words:

I write separately to identify the peculiar features of the Alabama law that render it invalid, and to explain why moment of silence laws in other States do not necessarily manifest the same infirmity. I also write to explain why neither history nor the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment validates the Alabama law struck down by the Court today.

Her historical analysis is interesting enough. Along the way she defends the continued use of the “Lemon Test” while suggesting perhaps it would benefit from some polishing or updating to help maintain its usefulness.
The more relevant part for states and districts post-Wallace, however, is her discussion of similar “moment of silence” laws which may share the goals and even the verbiage of Alabama’s but not its background. In other words, how would this statute – or something very similar – fare if passed without being preceded by the announcement it was intended to be evangelical and almost immediately followed by an “oh just pray with them already!” update? The short version was that they’d probably be fine if they simply avoided being quite so transparent about their religious goals.

While O’Connor expressed confidence the Court could tell the difference between sincere efforts at secular legislation and thinly veiled movements towards state-sponsorship of religion, it’s not much of a leap to infer that the real lesson was that politicians should be a bit less forthcoming about their motivations for this sort of legislation. In short, Alabama had simply made it too obvious what they were trying to do.

Dissents

Each of the three dissenting justices wrote a separate opinion. Justice White’s is brief and not particularly enlightening. The other two, however, are both scathing and poignant. As the balance of power in the nation’s highest court continues to shift, it’s quite possible they’ll find new life in 21st century jurisprudence. It’s not inconceivable they could soon represent the majority view rather than the outraged minority.

Chief Justice Warren Burger primarily disagreed with the idea that the option of voluntarily praying during a moment of silence qualified as government coercion towards religion. He cited other examples of times religion appeared in government functions without great trauma. Burger was particularly unimpressed by the Court’s citations of the law’s sponsor as proof it lacked a valid secular purpose.

Burger pointed out that the comments came after the bill’s passage and were accompanied by an assertion by the same legislator that he simply wanted to make the point that students had every right to pray in school if they so chose. Most significantly, in Burger’s mind, there was no evidence that the comments of one legislator after-the-fact in any way reflected the reasoning of the majority who’d voted to support the legislation in the first place.

Finally, for good measure, he mocks the Court’s use of the “Lemon Test,” calling it a “naive preoccupation with an easy, bright-line approach for addressing constitutional issues.” In short, Burger thinks the majority’s reasoning is absurd and their reactions completely out of proportion to circumstances, and he’s not shy about explaining precisely why.

Justice William Rehnquist (who will eventually become Chief Justice) takes an entirely different approach. His dissent undercuts the validity of the “wall of separation” imagery as an accurate representation of the goal of the First Amendment’s religion clauses to begin with. Most of his dissent is taken up in extended historical analysis of the origins of the Amendment and how very much NOT THERE Jefferson was the entire time. He also cites multiple examples from early American history in which the same men who wrote and ratified the First Amendment clearly didn’t seem to think it prohibited the federal government from proclaiming days of prayer or thanksgiving or otherwise acknowledging the role of the Almighty in their affairs.

It’s a pretty impressive historical case.

In short, Rehnquist prefers Madison’s approach to the “establishment” and “free exercise” clauses – protections from official government religions mandating one flavor of Protestantism over another and severely restricting private religious behavior. The idea that any sort of “wall” – metaphorical or otherwise – was ever intended to be erected between church and state was absurd, according to Rehnquist.

Aftermath

Many other states had similar laws on the books, and others have added them since, without serious constitutional challenge. A “moment of silence” is fine in public schools, as long as there’s no overtly expressed pressure to pray. There’s little to indicate that the 5 – 7 seconds of awkward silence typically beginning morning announcements actually accomplish anything in terms of mentally or emotionally preparing students for the school day, but effectiveness is not part of the “Lemon Test.” All it takes is a plausible assertion of valid secular goals.

Calm, focused students fit that requirement.

Moment of Silence – Bown v. Gwinnett County School District (1997) / Brown v. Gilmore (2001)

February 12, 2017June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Two cases in the early 1960s largely eliminated state-sponsored prayer from public schooling. Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington v. Schempp (1963) are to this day touted by the far right as responsible for having kicked God out of schools – leading inevitably to sex, drugs, violence, rock’n’roll, corduroy, divorce, the pill, AIDS, the Clintons, terrorism, and a Kenyan sleeper-cell Mooslim illegitimately seizing the White House for eight long, painful years.

The solution, of course, is to get God back IN our schools by requiring regimented recitation of state-approved chants. He LOVES those! Do this, we are assured, and America’s problems will vanish faster than you can say “civil liberties!”

Alabama led the way in the 1980s with a series of legislation which eventually led to Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the only “Moment of Silence” case to reach the Supreme Court to date. The Court determined that the state could mandate a “moment of silence” during the school day, but could not lead or even encourage prayer during that time.

The goals of Alabama’s legislation were no secret – state legislators ran on promises to get prayer back into schools, or as close as they could get it. That’s largely what stifled further establishment in Alabama – the Court refused to pretend the history and rhetoric associated with legislation didn’t exist while considering its constitutionality.

Legislative leaders in other states took note and began exercising greater caution as they argued for moments of silence of their own. Suddenly this 60-second period would promote non-violence and academic reflection and gluten-free living and all sorts of things.

A decade after Wallace, Georgia passed its own version of a “moment of silence.” It was challenged by a classroom teacher and ended up in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals as Bown v. Gwinnett County School District (1997). The Court determined that the Moment of Quiet Reflection in Schools Act did NOT violate the Establishment Clause.

The Court’s written opinion is unremarkable, but includes some details of note, such as this bit from what they call the Act’s “uncodified preamble”:

The General Assembly finds that in today’s hectic society, all too few of our citizens are able to experience even a moment of quiet reflection before plunging headlong into the day’s activities. Our young citizens are particularly affected by this absence of an opportunity for a moment of quiet reflection. The General Assembly finds that our young, and society as a whole, would be well served if students were afforded a moment of quiet reflection at the beginning of each day in the public schools.

It’s an absurd bit of glossy nonsense, but it’s constitutional nonsense. We could all probably benefit from drinking more water as well, but I notice no one’s mandating a moment of refreshing hydration each morning. But whatever.

Also in the ‘History of the Case’:

Senator David Scott, the primary sponsor of the Act… represented an urban district in Atlanta, Georgia. He was the Chairman of the Senate Education Committee… and a member of the State Violence Task Force Committee to prevent violence in schools. Senator Scott introduced {the Moment of Silence bill} as a part of a package of legislation aimed at reducing violence among Georgia’s youths.

I realize I’m a bit cynical, but 60 seconds of mandatory head-bowing seems a poor substitute for addressing poverty, mental health, drug addiction, sexual abuse, etc. But perhaps I assume too much.

Senator Scott had observed that after several killings on school campuses, students came together to have a moment of silent reflection. Noting that this moment of silence seemed to be beneficial and calming, Senator Scott believed that providing students with an opportunity for silent introspection at the beginning of each school day would help to combat violence among Georgia’s students.

I guess we’re lucky Georgia didn’t mandate a daily mock funeral ceremony using the same reasoning.

During debates over the bill, some state legislators liked it specifically because it was a step towards school prayer. Others opposed it for the same reason. Wisely, many in favor of the bill went on record arguing that it didn’t promote school prayer or have any religious purpose at all. That gave the Court enough cover as to the purpose of the bill that they could in good conscience consider it “religiously neutral.”

The teacher who initiated the case, Brian Brown, argued that the law violated the Establishment Clause and cited the “Lemon Test” to prove it. No surprise, then, that the 11th Circuit used Lemon to respond.

The first prong of the Lemon test requires that the challenged statute have a “clearly secular purpose” … However, the statute’s purpose need not be exclusively secular… A statute violates the Establishment Clause if it is “entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion” …
To ascertain a statute’s purpose, it is, of course, necessary to examine the language of the statute on its face… It is also appropriate to consider the legislative history of the statute and the specific sequence of events leading up to the adoption of the statute.

The Court cites both the law itself and its context and presentation by way of establishing that the law explicitly avoids promoting religious activities during this magical minute. At the same time, should a child choose to bow their head or clutch their rosary beads during the moment of life-altering focus and de-violencing, the state may not discourage them from so doing.

The Court specifically addresses the difference in dynamics between this situation and Jaffree – largely distinguished by what was said in debates leading up to passage, and contemporaneous legislation with similar goals.

Issues involving motivation or purpose of pro-religious legislation are sometimes determinative, sometimes merely a factor in the larger discussion, and (especially recently) sometimes completely ignored altogether. Nevertheless, just to be safe, lawmakers are highly encouraged to be completely disingenuous when proposing and debating such legislation in order to assure they pass judicial muster. They needn’t feel bad. It’s like Jesus said, “You must obscure the truth, because the truth will just get in the way.”

In Jaffree, the primary sponsor of the Alabama statute and the Governor of Alabama both explicitly conceded that the purpose of the Alabama statute was to return prayer to the Alabama schools, and Alabama failed to present any evidence of a secular purpose… In contrast, in this case, the primary sponsor of the Act indicated that the Act had a secular purpose.
It is true, as Bown argues, that some legislators expressed the desire to return prayer to Georgia’s schools and supported the Act for this reason. However, it is also true that other legislators felt that the Act did not involve school prayer…

You get the idea.

Under the second prong of the Lemon test, a statute violates the Establishment Clause if its primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion…
The announcement made over the school intercom by Principal Hendrix indicated only that there would be a moment of silence to reflect on the day’s activities. This announcement in no way suggested that students should or should not pray silently during the moment of quiet reflection…
There is no indication in this case that any teacher encouraged prayer in violation of the guidelines stated in the Administrative Bulletin. There is no evidence in this case that any students were exhorted to pray, favored for praying, or disfavored for not praying…

The Court then contrasts this dynamic with situations in which students may feel indirectly, if not explicitly, coerced, such as in Lee v. Weisman (1992) and finds they’re not at all similar. There’s no advancement of religion here.

The third prong of the Lemon test dictates that the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion…
We conclude that there is no excessive entanglement in this case.

Yeah, that was going to be a tough sell at best.

All that the Act requires is that the students and the teacher in charge remain silent during the moment of quiet reflection. Teachers are not required to participate in or lead prayers, nor are they required to review the content of prayers during the moment of quiet reflection…

They’re not only “not required;” they’re specifically prohibited from so doing.

The fact that a teacher must stop a student who prays audibly or otherwise makes noise during the moment of quiet reflection does not result in excessive government entanglement with religion. There are many times during any given school day when teachers tell their students to be quiet and when audible activity of any kind is not permitted. The fact that this particular period of silence is mandated statewide does not create entanglement problems.

A few short years later, Virginia took their turn. The resulting case, Brown v. Gilmore (2001), was heard and decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the outcome was basically the same. It’s notable for being the first instance I’ve come across of the specific phrasing used by many state legislatures since, including Oklahoma’s. Here’s how Oklahoma’s statute reads, in case you’re curious:

The board of education of each school district shall ensure that the public schools within the district observe approximately one minute of silence each day for the purpose of allowing each student, in the exercise of his or her individual choice, to reflect, meditate, pray, or engage in any other silent activity that does not interfere with, distract, or impede other students in the exercise of their individual choices.

But there’s more…

The Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma is hereby authorized to intervene in any legal proceeding to enforce the provisions of this act and shall represent any school district or employee named as a defendant therein.

Ha! Defensive, much?

Several similar cases have produced comparable results in other federal courts. They each have their own quirks, but the pattern is clear.

With the sudden national lurch to the right (and away from even token concern with civil liberties or the sincerity of inflicted faith), it remains to be seen what may come next. For now, however, the “moment of silence” – a pointless exercise designed only to allow legislators to walk right up to that line separating church and state and kick dirt on its trousers – is on solid constitutional ground.

Presumably this is already rolling back forty years of decadence and cultural decline. If not, we might have to up it to two minutes.

A Wall of Separation – Bown v. Gwinnett County School District (1997)

February 8, 2017June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

The Court’s written opinion is unremarkable, but includes some details of note, such as this bit from what they call the Act’s “uncodified preamble”:

The General Assembly finds that in today’s hectic society, all too few of our citizens are able to experience even a moment of quiet reflection before plunging headlong into the day’s activities. Our young citizens are particularly affected by this absence of an opportunity for a moment of quiet reflection. The General Assembly finds that our young, and society as a whole, would be well served if students were afforded a moment of quiet reflection at the beginning of each day in the public schools.

It’s an absurd bit of glossy nonsense, but it’s constitutional nonsense. We could all probably benefit from drinking more water as well, but I notice no one’s mandating a moment of refreshing hydration each morning. I’m just saying.

Also in the ‘History of the Case’:

Senator David Scott, the primary sponsor of the Act… represented an urban district in Atlanta, Georgia. He was the Chairman of the Senate Education Committee… and a member of the State Violence Task Force Committee to prevent violence in schools. Senator Scott introduced {the Moment of Silence bill} as a part of a package of legislation aimed at reducing violence among Georgia’s youths.

I realize I’m a bit cynical, but 60 seconds of mandatory head-bowing seems a poor substitute for addressing poverty, mental health, drug addiction, sexual abuse, etc. But perhaps I assume too much.

Senator Scott had observed that after several killings on school campuses, students came together to have a moment of silent reflection. Noting that this moment of silence seemed to be beneficial and calming, Senator Scott believed that providing students with an opportunity for silent introspection at the beginning of each school day would help to combat violence among Georgia’s students.

I guess we’re lucky Georgia didn’t mandate a daily mock funeral ceremony using the same reasoning.

During debates over the bill, some state legislators liked it specifically because it was a step towards school prayer. Others opposed it for the same reason. Wisely, many in favor of the bill went on record arguing that it didn’t promote school prayer or have any religious purpose at all. That gave the Court enough cover as to the purpose of the bill that they could in good conscience consider it “religiously neutral.”

The first prong of the Lemon test requires that the challenged statute have a “clearly secular purpose” … However, the statute’s purpose need not be exclusively secular… A statute violates the Establishment Clause if it is “entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion” …
To ascertain a statute’s purpose, it is, of course, necessary to examine the language of the statute on its face… It is also appropriate to consider the legislative history of the statute and the specific sequence of events leading up to the adoption of the statute.

The Court cites both the law itself and its context and presentation by way of establishing that the law explicitly avoids promoting religious activities during this magical minute. At the same time, should a child choose to bow their head or clutch their rosary beads during the moment of life-altering, the state may not discourage them from so doing.

The Court specifically addresses the difference in dynamics between this situation and Wallace. It’s largely a matter of what was said in debates leading up to passage, and surrounding legislation with similar goals.

I cannot emphasize this enough. All subsequent efforts to nudge religious rituals back into government schooling will be made with an awareness that public arguments and discussions may be factored in to any resulting constitutional challenges. Lawmakers are essentially encouraged to be disingenuous if they wish to pass judicial muster.

In Jaffree, the primary sponsor of the Alabama statute and the Governor of Alabama both explicitly conceded that the purpose of the Alabama statute was to return prayer to the Alabama schools, and Alabama failed to present any evidence of a secular purpose… In contrast, in this case, the primary sponsor of the Act indicated that the Act had a secular purpose.
It is true, as Bown argues, that some legislators expressed the desire to return prayer to Georgia’s schools and supported the Act for this reason. However, it is also true that other legislators felt that the Act did not involve school prayer…

You get the idea.

Under the second prong of the Lemon test, a statute violates the Establishment Clause if its primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion…
The announcement made over the school intercom by Principal Hendrix indicated only that there would be a moment of silence to reflect on the day’s activities. This announcement in no way suggested that students should or should not pray silently during the moment of quiet reflection…
There is no indication in this case that any teacher encouraged prayer in violation of the guidelines stated in the Administrative Bulletin. There is no evidence in this case that any students were exhorted to pray, favored for praying, or disfavored for not praying…

The third prong of the Lemon test dictates that the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion…
We conclude that there is no excessive entanglement in this case.

Yeah, that was going to be a tough sell at best.

All that the Act requires is that the students and the teacher in charge remain silent during the moment of quiet reflection. Teachers are not required to participate in or lead prayers, nor are they required to review the content of prayers during the moment of quiet reflection…

They’re not only “not required;” they’re specifically prohibited from so doing.

The fact that a teacher must stop a student who prays audibly or otherwise makes noise during the moment of quiet reflection does not result in excessive government entanglement with religion. There are many times during any given school day when teachers tell their students to be quiet and when audible activity of any kind is not permitted. The fact that this particular period of silence is mandated statewide does not create entanglement problems.

A few short years later, Virginia took their turn. The resulting case, Brown v. Gilmore (2001), was heard and decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the outcome was basically the same. Several others have produced comparable results in other federal courts. They each have their own quirks, but the pattern is clear.

With the recent lurch of all three branches to the right, and away from even token concern with civil liberties or sincere belief, it’s hard to guess what may come next. But for now, the “moment of silence” – a pointless exercise designed only to allow legislators to walk right up to that line separating church and state and kick dirt on its trousers – is on solid constitutional ground.

It remains to be seen whether the practice is sufficient to roll back forty years of decadence and cultural decline. We might have to up it to two minutes.

A Wall of Separation – Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

September 23, 2016June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

So far we’ve done a brief overview of the concept of a ‘Wall of Separation’ between church and state, and covered a few early Supreme Court Cases involving religion and public schools.

We looked at Everson v. Board of Education (1947) in which the Court determined it was perfectly acceptable for the state to reimburse parents for transportation costs of getting their children to school, whether public or private, sectarian or secular.

Then came Engel v. Vitale (1962), in which the Court made clear that the state could NOT require – or even promote – prayer in public schools as part of the school day. It was followed closely by Abington v. Schempp (1963) in which the same decision applied to the reading of Bible verses or the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer.

In both of these cases, the Court sought to prevent either the power of government or the foibles of politicians from unduly interfering in man’s reach for the Almighty. This was how they interpreted the Framers’ concerns as expressed in the First Amendment, applicable to the states via the Fourteenth.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court established a “checklist” by which interested parties could determine whether or not something violated the “Establishment Clause” or the “Free Exercise Clause” of the First Amendment. While neither exclusive nor absolute, the “Lemon Test” is still regularly referenced today.

In Stone v. Graham (1980), the Court said boo to the required posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. The trend was clear – go easy on pushing your faith via mandatory common education.

But then Reagan took office, and a conservative revolution of sorts swept the nation. I don’t want to overstate the case – it’s not a Disney movie – but for those of you who weren’t there or don’t remember, the Reagan Era wasn’t just a presidential administration. It was a social movement, a political shift, a new dynamic comparable to Kennedy’s “Camelot” in impact – although very different in flavor.

Evangelicals were emboldened and the media and courts demonized as liberals – disgusting and dishonorable, both deceived and deceptive. They were dangers to the nation and everyone in it. Reagan wasn’t evil, at least by modern standards, but he did epitomize a sort of American Exceptionalism in Book-of-Revelation Sauce. The passion and self-righteousness of Ronnie and his adherents pre-empted reason, law, or precedent.

It was in this climate that Alabama decided that Jesus and His legacy simply could not survive much longer without their assistance.

They’d already passed a 1978 law providing for a “moment of silence” each school day “for meditation.” They weren’t the only ones to test this route. Many states or districts instituted some variation of the “moment of silence” after Vitale (1962) and Schempp (1963) made it clear that institutional prayer or other overt Biblization was a no-no.

The “moment of silence” was as much a symbolic move as anything – it served and serves no real purpose or function beyond stepping right up to the line of church-state separation and daring the courts to do something about it. The legislators sponsoring the bill had said as much from the floor; it wasn’t a secret – they were running on their efforts to get prayer back into public schools. Extra credit if you can tell me why that alone should have been enough to invalidate the idea. {Hint: it rhymes with “Women Vest.”}

Alabama took things a step further in 1981, legislating that the moment of silence was to be used “for mediation and voluntary prayer.” Their momentum building, they upped their game yet again in 1982 and instructed teachers to lead “willing students” in a state-written prayer.

Ishmael Jaffree had three kids in Mobile County Public Schools – two in second grade and one in kindergarten. He protested the state-designed prayer, and had plenty of established case law on his side. But that’s not what struck me about his complaint.

Jaffree’s concerns stemmed not from abstract constitutional issues, but from his kindergartener being targeted by other kids for not participating in the prayers. His five-year-old was essentially bullied for not falling into line with state-mandated religious activities.

Yes, the prayer was technically voluntary – but as anyone in education knows, “voluntary” can mean many different things. In this case, it was legal cover for bad law, an effort to create enough of a loophole to allow Alabama to belittle children for holding to their family’s religious beliefs in ways that didn’t harm or bother anyone, but without the state running afoul of those damned godless liberal judges.

And yes, there comes a time in life – even public school life – where students must be expected to grow up and accept that not everything works the way they want it to and not everyone is nice. We can’t and shouldn’t stop kids from ever saying an unkind word to one another.

That doesn’t mean, however, that the abuse has to be state-sanctioned. That doesn’t mean the state should throw the first pebble then disclaim responsibility when the very children it’s seeking to influence continue the work by throwing stones of their own.

In an interesting wrinkle, the federal district judge who heard this case as it worked its way through the system chose to ignore precedent and declared the laws perfectly constitutional, stating in his decision that “Alabama has the power to establish a State religion if it chooses to do so.” I’m all for waving your little flag at the tank as it rolls through the square, but this wasn’t the powerless standing up to the powerful – this was power trying to take more power.

And it wouldn’t have happened a decade before.

The South was ready to rise again through God, Guns, and the Gipper. Where’s that Confederate Flag and my 12-pack of Keystone?

I promise I’m not blaming every error of the modern world on Ronald Reagan – I was actually quite a fan. But he was wrong when early in his Presidency he proposed a constitutional amendment permitting organized prayer in public schools. He was wrong in his 1984 State of the Union when he asked why “freedom to acknowledge God” couldn’t “be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land?”

It’s always problematic when we use “freedom” to mean “giving me the power to force you to comply with my beliefs.” Students have always been free to acknowledge God in whatever schoolroom they happen to be. They’ve never been prohibited from praying at appropriate times or discussing their faith with other students, as long as we can have school along the way.

Imagine if President Clinton had insisted that school intercoms, choirs, and bands be used to broadcast, sing, and play Led Zeppelin exclusively, and at least once a day. Is that “bringing back freedom”?

It’s no dis on Zeppelin to suggest that some people much prefer Supertramp, or the Police, or even Etta James. Besides, you have to suspect that it wouldn’t be long before not just ANY Zeppelin would work. If your local Congressman is partial to the B-side of In Through The Out Door, then THAT becomes the only acceptable Zeppelin from here on out. You don’t even get “In The Evening” that way!

Of course you can disagree, but… why do you hate freedom? Are you a threat to our way of life? What are you, Disco?

On a personal note, I must confess that student liberties aside, I’m rather horrified by the use of the Christian faith as this sort of political tire iron. If the God they claim to serve is truly so helpless as to be somehow barred from hallways and classrooms of public schools around the nation, their efforts to facilitate his comeback are both tragic and unwise.

Surely the same Jesus who conquered Death and Hell isn’t lying around half-formed in a forest somewhere, waiting for Wormtail to bring him a few more ingredients for the Holy Cauldron or for Ms. Kravitz to read the right magic prayer out loud enough times.

It’s hard to imagine Paul the Apostle sitting along the road somewhere in Cyrprus, whining that he can’t preach the Gospel until some local legislature makes a rule requiring the Beatitudes be posted in the marketplace or mandating the 23rd Psalm be recited before any and all public lectures.

If your faith only works when government mandates that minors pay it hollow homage, you need a better faith.

But I should probably get back to the case…

While the Bible part and the praying part are consistently prohibited as violations of the Establishment Clause, the “Moment of Silence” has for the most part survived constitutional scrutiny, even while being acknowledged as an “accommodation” of faith – but not an “establishment” or “inhibitor” of faith.

That’s why in Oklahoma, every school day, students are given 5 – 7 seconds to “reflect, meditate, or pray” in any manner not disrupting or distracting those around them. I don’t know about you, but I feel MUCH closer to God as a result. If we were given, say… 12 seconds to work with, who knows what could happen?

RELATED POST: Should You Legislate the Bible?

RELATED POST: Missing the Old Testament

RELATED POST: Welcome to Atheist School!