0 OPINION Page 4 Thursday, March 29, 1984 The Michigan Daily State isn't neutral on prayer issue By Paul Champoux In this debate both sides present compelling arguments, and taking sides is not a simple matter due to the interplay of three concerns. The first is the need to safeguard each individual's freedom to be true to conscience. The second is the inescapable influence of public institutions and practices upon individuals, especially upon formative children. The third is concern for the quality of character and the spiritual strength of our nation. Whatever the public practice is regarding school prayer, can it in fact be neutral as it impinges upon the varying, even con- trary, beliefs of different individuals? If not, then how can both the freedom of all, and their opportunity for religious growth and expression be maximized? . The discussion of school prayer in the Senate and the media raises actually two questions which need to be distinguished from each other. One is, should a civil institution (public schools, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Con- stitution) endorse or institute public worship? The second is, if they do, then who should formulate the prayers, and how can they be made voluntary? THE FIRST question of endorsement by a civil body depends on a larger issue: should God be officially recognized and honored in public (civic, educational) life? About that first question, some propose that the state take a "neutral" stance vis-a-vis religion by not permit- ting any group prayer organized by a public body or official. At first that may sound neutral, but on reflection that too can be seen as a particular religious position. There can be no really neutral position. The decision must derive from one of two premises, the choice (of either) being a religious act itself: a commitment to a particular belief about Ultimate Being and ultimate values. The two premises are that either there is God whom we can know, or else there is not. If there is, then we must choose either to seek to recognize and honor him, or ignore and neglect him. From God's perspective he should be honored both by in- dividuals and by the civil bodies representing man in society. But God's purpose for man includes the freedom for man to ignore or reject him (not the right to, but the freedom to). And our constitution aims at preserving that free choice. Our form of government also permits the majority to make laws according to their preference, as long as that does not violate justice for the minority, their basic dignity or their rightful moral commitments. So if a majority votes to exclude time for prayer from the school curriculum, they may be un- der God's judgment but would not be violating out Constitution. BUT FOR the same reason, if a majority decides that they want to pray publicly in school orwcommunity gatherings, should the wishes of the minority carry more weight than the wishes of the majority? What justice is that? On that score, Time magazine reported, "Polls have consistently shown heavy majorities in favor of school prayer; Gallup reported last September that 81 percent of respon- dants who had followed the issue sup- ported an amendment that would per- mit 'voluntary' prayer, versus only 14 percent opposed." So freedom to pray is being taken away by a very small minority. Even if those desiring to pray would be in the minority, they nevertheless could justly be accommodated in some way. The school property belongs to all: not only to the majority, but also to the minority who also pay taxes. So it is not justice if, for instance, a homosexual group, themselves a minority group in number, can get use of public property and funds, but a Bible club is prohibited from using school rooms for after-class meetings. Sen. Howard Baker commented that public schools have an "anti-religious bias", and added that "prayer is a right to be exercised or not exercised volun- tarily." So a government cannot simply say, "let the people practice what they want to in their homes and churches, but we will be uninvolved in schools and public property." Rather, the gover- nment of necessity does take a de facto stand for or against God. The majority's right to express a pro- religious stance as a community was supported by Chief Justice Burger in a recent Supreme Court decision. He wrote then that the Constitution does not decree the complete separation df church and state, but rather "affir- matively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any." The Constitution does not require that the state be uncommitted regarding deity, or that it refrain from encouraging religion in general. The state's neutrality toward particular religions is not inconsistent with its positive stance towards religion generically, and in fact has not kept God from being officially recognized. OUR DECLARATION of Indepen- dence says that the individual's guarantee of inalienable rights arises from the existence, will, and law of God. Government minted coins say, "In God we trust". The pledge of allegiance states that we are "one nation under God," and officials have taken office with vows sealed by, "so help me, God." Government has recognized that the work of religious organizations is beneficial to society, and has officially aided them by protecting their non- profit status for taxation. Giving verbal recognition and economic aid to such groups is no more a breach of the separation between church and state than is allocating public time and facilities for the practice of religion. Consistent with that, a large number of citizens, out of a sense of right and gratitude and self-preservation, want to apply to our nation the principle God stated through his prophets: "The Lord declares ... those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained" (I Samuel 2:30), and "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.. . " (Psalm 33:12). If our nation decides that God should be publicly recognized, even officially recognized, then we can move on to the second question. That is, who will com- pose and institutionalize the wording of that recognition? If only silent prayer is If spoken prayer is used in a united assembly or group session of regular, mandatory attendance, our religious p'lurality would not permit the establishment of an "official" prayer for all. There can be no such thing as an absolutely "nondenominational prayer" (a lowest common denominator). There might be one with "meat" in it which is still acceptable to the large majority of religious groups. But one that is bland and says nothing 'So it is not justice if, for instance, a homosexual group, themselves a minority group in number, can get use of public property and funds, but a Bible club is prohibited from using school rooms for af- ter-class meetings. not carry law-making authority with their formulations. Let them be selec- ted representatively or randomly in a way that would represent the various groups fairly. Only the question of voluntary par- ticipation remains. Of course, no student should be required to pray him- self - that is, to say a prayer in unison with the group, or to speak a written prayer himself. When a prayer is spoken by a volunteer in a regular class or assembly, the students would not have to pray themselves, though they could not avoid hearing someone else pray - either a peer or an adult. That may seem unduly coercive at first until we consider that students have little choice about hearing daily the world-and-life views of teachers anyway. These range from casual blasphemy in the use of God's names, to the systematic teaching of atheism and the sovereignty of matter in natural science, social, science, and political science courses. They are not only being forced to sit and listen to that, but in the case of instruction, to tak notes and be tested on it! (Try adding that requirement to the prayer amen- dment!) Yet cursing and naturalistic premises are religious statements just as much as prayer is! Senator Baker's charge of anti-religious bias in public schools is demonstrated by that. In conclusion, I believe that these issues, as I have discussed them in detail, are what need to be clarified, spelled out to the satisfaction of the large majority, and guaranteed in some way, before the very general wording of any of the present proposed amen- dments will actually be ratified by Congress and th'e states. permitted, then the individual is free to formulate the prayer, however he wan- ts to, or else he is free not to pray at all. But spoken prayer may have greater learning potential, and greater religious significance by group par- ticipation. So if spoken prayer should be formulated by persons selected in some random or representative way, or only spoken in separate settings and for- mulated by various persons chosen by the students or their parents according to their own various preferences (as in extracurricular student clubs, "released time" periods). Proposed amendment SJ Res 212 would allow student religious groups to use public school buildings for meeting during non-class hours. would not satisfy its purpose, and would be offensive to those having a clearly developed basic theology. BUT IT IS possible to have spoken prayer without it being an officially formulated one. Proposed amendment SJ Res 73, while allowing organized, recited prayer, states that neither a state nor a federal government can compose any prayer. Also, Senator Baker proposed a compromise for the other proposals offered which states, ' ... neither the United States nor any state shall compose or mandate the words of any prayer to be said in public schools." Let those who formulate the prayers be from non-governmental components of society: representative, willing persons or associations who do Champoux is an area represen- tative of InternationalStudents Inc. 4 Sinclair Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Vol. XCIV-No. 142 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 I Editorials represeit a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Cast (away) votes MANY POLLING places opened late, some never opened at all, and there are allegations that a couple of poll operators allowed only certain people to vote. Vote fraud in El Salvador? No, actually these problems surrounded this year's poorly conduc- ted Michigan Student Assembly elec- tions. MSA's explanation is that many in- dividuals enlisted to man the polls bowed out ot their commitments at the last moment. That is pretty hard luck but it shouldn't get MSA off the hook. The elections are an important time for the assembly to establish some much-needed legitimacy and com- petence. Efficient, fair, well-publicized elections make a favorable impression - an impression that wasn't made this year. It is not such a monumental task to provide poll operators provided that someone is conscientiously planning ahead. And MSA should be planning ahead. The more votes cast, the more right the assembly has to claim itself as a representative student voice. Convenient voting opportunities should be a top priority. If they are not, they should be. And if they already are a top priority, one has to wonder about the competence of those responsible. MSA possesses a dubious reputation in the eyes of the student body that will not be helped by this year's bad plan- ning. The assembly also missed an op- portunity to impress the . ad- ministration which is understandably interested in who votes and how the whole procedure is handled. MSA can't afford to mess up like that. The price is too steep. 6n I Vigilante justice LETTERS TO THE DAILY: TAs should unite behind GEO W AROLD Shapiro cuts his own throat, n the proposed code for nonaca- demic conduct in his recent memo to the regents, printed in this week's Univer- sity Record. Shapirocites a recent incident at the University of Pennsylvania in which that school was "criticized for treating some students leniently who had gang- raped another student. He uses no more than a newspaper account of the event, but he's ready to trv and convict the accused in charges. Tell us President Shapiro, were you at the scene of the alleged crime? Do you know who did what to whom and how any of the individuals acted? No? Neither do we. And while we respect the position of the victim, we're not ready to pronounce guilt. Add Shapiro's callous regard for legal rights to his vigilante-like at- titude, and the University may soon find itself with lynch mobs on its han- ds. In the memo, Shapiro also states To the Daily: As a graduate student teaching assistant, I have been disturbed by several letters to the editor appearing in the Daily recently. Graduate students at the Univer- sity are fortunate to have a union. Because of GEO, TA s enjoy health benefits and a sizable tuition reduction. Because of GEO, TA s got a raise this year and will again next year along with a bigger tuition waiver. speak at meetings and get in- volved in union activities. Nonetheless, as with most organizations, a small number of volunteers are forced to do most of the work. If all graduate students joined together and were willing to give a few hours a semester to the organization that helps us all, next winter when BLOOM COUNTY contract negotiations come around again the University would take us seriously. If we fight together instead of bicker, we could win a full tuition waiver and a living wage. - Marilyn Watkins Marchi22 Unsigned editorials appearing on the left side of this page represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board. by Berke Breathed I I I -I IJ