- Business notebook: Cape salon picked as one of nation's top 200 (4/17/17)
- Man out on bond for alleged molestation of boys charged with abusing girl (4/18/17)
- Pilot House goes smoke-free (4/23/17)10
- New policy for semissourian.com online commentary: No pseudonyms (4/17/17)59
- Without city record, Marie Street residents on hook for thousands in sewer repairs (4/19/17)7
- Going the distance: Several locals participate in Boston Marathon (4/18/17)2
- Event includes the first public tour of 200-year-old Elmwood Manor (4/23/17)3
- Cape councilman Bob Fox to run for mayor (4/21/17)5
- Deputy: Man kicked, broke uncle's ribs after yard-work dispute (4/19/17)
- Scott County: M Kay Supply in Benton fills unique needs in community (4/14/17)
Legal critique regarding prayer - opposing view
To the editor:
I appreciate Todd Diebold's critique of Lee v. Weisman. However, I disagree with his conclusion that the court's opinion was flawed.
There are two questions: 1. Is it obstructing the rights of a member of a religious group (or an atheist or agnostic) to have a public school participate in a prayer for a god or a religion that he or she does not believe in? 2. Is it infringing the rights of a member of the group that the prayer was going to represent to deny the public prayer?
I disagree with Diebold's argument that the answer to question No. 2 is yes and that the answer to question No. 1 is no. I have often heard arguments that members of other religious groups can pray quietly to themselves. However, the argument runs both ways. If the member of a minority religious group can choose to pray to himself, then the members of the majority religious group could likewise pray to themselves.
I believe a single prayer to a god that many people do not believe in is an establishment of religion. Praying silently is still a religious practice, and that right is not infringed upon. As long as there are tests, there will always be prayer in public schools.