- Marble Hill fires entire sewer department (8/23/16)4
- Witness says he saw man shoot Domorlo McCaster (8/19/16)2
- Students move into new fraternity housing at Southeast Missouri State University (8/18/16)2
- Southeast imposes 'interim suspension' of Sigma Nu fraternity over vandalism incident (8/19/16)21
- Ex-Southeast student gets probation for placing homemade sex video on porn site without woman's knowledge (8/24/16)11
- The Chrome Queens (8/21/16)2
- Pitmasters to descend on Arena Park for Cape BBQ Fest (8/19/16)2
- Logan's Roadhouse in Cape not closing; Ruby Tuesday fate still unknown (8/17/16)
- Local private school dreams bigger, plans for new building at Sprigg and Lexington (8/22/16)
- Gender-neutral restrooms now available at Southeast (8/18/16)38
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.