- Two men seriously hurt in crash near Fruitland (9/21/16)3
- Community helps Jackson family with two cases of muscular dystrophy (9/19/16)
- Concealed-carry restrictions remain in Missouri despite new state law (9/18/16)22
- Perryville man arrested for alleged patronizing prostitution, harassment (9/23/16)6
- Children's exposure to meth via parents is growing; Mo. Children's Division seeing effects (9/18/16)8
- Eldorado Resorts to buy Isle of Capri Casinos (9/20/16)7
- Poplar Bluff man accused of beating a grandmother to death with baseball bat (9/18/16)
- Funeral procession of former Cape Girardeau police chief Henry H. Gerecke (9/22/16)17
- Cape man accused of attacking pregnant girlfriend (9/22/16)
- Show Me Center upgrades may allow facility to draw more elaborate shows (9/21/16)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.