- Man accused of setting fire to Delta bar; posted photos of it burning on Facebook (9/17/17)5
- Owner of Mary Jane Burgers & Brew in Perryville to open new culinary concept in Cape (9/15/17)3
- McClure man accused of leaving children in hot truck while gambling in casino (9/19/17)1
- New boutique store advocates for special-needs people (9/19/17)
- Retailer may come to Jackson; rezoning needed first (9/17/17)2
- Planet Fitness to anchor Town Plaza shopping center (9/18/17)2
- Mo. conservation agents help fight fires in western U.S. (9/15/17)
- Jury finds Harris guilty of murder, 3 other counts (9/15/17)4
- Former major-league slugger Darryl Strawberry to speak at La Croix (9/20/17)
- Young entrepreneurs add fresh ideas, unique offerings for area market (9/18/17)
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.