- Cape student sues, accuses school officials of slamming her to ground multiple times (04/28/16)45
- Bob Evans restaurant in Cape Girardeau among chain's 21 closings (04/26/16)9
- Missouri House votes to allow concealed weapons without permits (04/28/16)6
- Two hurt in motorcycle wreck on Interstate 55 (04/25/16)1
- Law firm requests information about Cape's traffic cameras (04/25/16)2
- Local lawmakers split over failed medical marijuana bill; voters may have a say (04/26/16)19
- Police report filed, but no charges in incident at Cape Central (04/29/16)36
- Tanker truck catches fire near Oak Ridge (04/24/16)7
- Local company makes eco-friendly kitty litter that cuts cat-box smell (04/25/16)
- Senator introduces bill for I-57 that would connect Sikeston with Little Rock (04/28/16)4
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.