THESIS: There are fanatics who believe that prayer not only has a place in the public schools, but that it should have a dominant place. That is, an appreciable block of time should be set aside for teacher- or administrator-led prayer before a congregation of students. My thesis: What is really needed is to set aside time for discussion on, What it Means to Be Human.
Someone once said: “There is no such thing as a Jewish child, or a Catholic child, or a Buddhist child; there are only children of parents who are Jewish, Catholic, or Buddhist.”
I don’t have anything against religious instruction for the young, but I abhor indoctrination. Exposure to opposing viewpoints is the best possible countermeasure against the “good” intentions of parents and religious communities. I would include here atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists since, in a manner of speaking, they can comprise their own “religious” communities.
One class period, once per week isn’t too much to devote to an open dialogue within the classroom concerning…(ah) what to call it? Even calling it “spirituality” might be too much for atheists and materialists. My personal preference: “What it means to be human” or (simply) “humanity.” For not even an atheist would deny that we’re human. What that means, however, that’s the rub.
Society has too much to lose by disallowing such open dialogue. Many social ills – including alienation, xenophobia, neurosis, and anti-social behavior – arise from what are basically questions of humanity that had never been fully explored when persons were young. In fact, the entire pseudo issue of school prayer is an excellent example of a tribal mentality at work. Advocates and opponents alike draw lines in the sand and quickly develop Us-vs-Them attitudes.
Case in Point: Illinois’ “School Prayer” Law
Much can be gleaned by careful reflection on this case, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit decided this law did not violate the US Constitution: Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act. It would be worth our while to quote the section of that Act, which was contested before the court:
QUOTE: In each public school classroom the teacher in charge shall observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.:UNQUOTE.
Oh, one more thing: The title of the Act was changed from:
Silent Reflection Act to Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act.
An objective observer might well ask: “Why was the word ‘prayer’ added to the Act’s name?”
One of the three deciding judges (Daniel A. Manion) responded: "It was important to note that prayer is a permissible option to negate any impression that teachers or students may have that students were not allowed to pray (silently) during the period of silence." Why, pray tell, was it “important to note?” The right of students to pray in school, in a non-disruptive manner, had already been long established. So why was it “important” to “negate any impression” that prayer was now to be disallowed?
Perhaps the answer lies in the motives of the legislators who passed these changes. We cannot, of course, know the motives of all of them, but a few of them were observed singing these words when the issue came up for a vote. To the tune of Simon and Garfunkel’s Sounds of Silence, we were treated to a public display of:
Hello, school prayer, our old friend
It’s time to vote on you again
In our school house without warning
You seek a moment in the morning.
Judge Manion also defended this Act by writing: “[Illinois] has offered a secular purpose [for this law] – establishing a period of silence for all school children in Illinois to calm the students and prepare them for a day of learning." If that was so, why wasn’t the Act simply entitled The Moment of Silence Act? And why was this “moment of silence” mandated? The language of the Act, before it was amended, stated that “the teacher in charge may observe a brief period of silence…” The revision included changing “may” to “shall.”
So there we have it: The legislators (and two of the three judges) decided they knew best how teachers must prepare their students for a day of learning. It didn’t occur to them that some teachers might have solid, practical reasons for an alternate approach. If students in a classroom are boisterous and talkative, instead of trying to “settle them down,” a teacher might try to channel that energy by rising to their level of boisterousness and either redirecting it or gradually diminishing it. But, no…lawmakers decided to stick their noses into an area of professional concern best left to the discretion of individual teachers.
Problematic text:
Take another look at the wording of the challenged portion of the Act:
QUOTE: In each public school classroom the teacher in charge shall observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.:UNQUOTE.
A couple of concerns:
· Define “brief.” Is ten seconds too short? Is 15 minutes too long? Should the duration of silence be uniform within a given school? Within the state? Who’s to judge? The word “brief” renders the Act vague and unenforceable.
· Define “at the opening of every school day.” As a practical matter, students might not have yet taken their seats when the 9 AM bell rings, so “at the opening” then becomes “somewhat later than 9 AM, but reasonably close to it.” What, then, is “reasonably close?”
· Suppose the school principal has to interrupt a particular classroom in the middle of its moment of silence. Is he breaking the law or does the teacher have to start that moment all over again after the principal leaves?
· Of course, there can’t be a fire drill at the beginning of the school day. So if the fire alarm rings while students are praying/reflecting, they must reasonably assume it’s because of a real fire. They might, therefore, panic which could cause a real public safety problem.
· This period is meant to provide “an opportunity” for two distinct types of (silent) activity. So we have a case where lawmakers are not only are telling students what to think but failing to provide any way to determine (and punish) those who think otherwise. Basically, this law, for that reason, is unenforceable.
· Are teachers to be obligated to explain to their students why they’re to engage in a moment of silence? If not, then how are students supposed to know what their lawmakers expect them to be thinking? Is the school expected to inform parents of these reasons, so they can do their part by prepping their children for this task?
· Will teachers be expected to explain to their very young students what “prayer” and “silent reflection” are – both as literal concepts and in terms of expected outcomes?
· After meditating silently, students will then be led to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, which is an indulgence in idol worship (check it out: “I pledge allegiance to the flag…” that, is “I pledge allegiance to this idol, to this piece of cloth). Perhaps the truly devout will sense this glaring contradiction and, therefore, refuse to recite the Pledge. Is that the intent of the legislators and the court – to undermine patriotism?
Ushering in an Age of Wisdom
Kids aren’t stupid. As they grow older and progress through high school, they’ll talk to each other. It won’t take them long to realize how dishonest was Judge Daniel A. Manion in his reasoning. Nor how dishonest were their state legislators. Kids will encounter many reasons to become cynical. Why add something so stupid as this to the mix?
One of the saddest things is to see otherwise religious and upstanding people “bend the rules” in the name of faith. In some misguided attempt to lead/mislead the public “for their own good.” If one cannot be honest, then one’s religion or ethical framework means little. But this problem even extends to my particular community of believers – Buddhists. This is one reason why I no longer associate with that community. That’s why (among other reasons) I refer to myself as a member of a sect that has only one member – me. And why is that, pray tell?
As far as I can determine, I am the only Buddhist who calls Shakyamuni Buddha a liar – knowing that the Buddha himself expects this. Within the text of his highest teaching, The Lotus Sutra (in the sixteen chapter), the Buddha relates a parable to his disciples and then asks, “"Good men, what is your opinion? Can anyone say that this skilled physician is guilty of lying?" They give an answer they thought the Buddha wanted to hear and which he affirms as correct; they say, “No.” However, it’s obvious in the parable itself that the physician did lie.
This is no small point and is not the only place in the Sutra where a lie is told. My contention, however, is that the Buddha did lie and expected/hoped his disciples would have called him on it. To which, I’m sure, he would have responded with something like, “Very good, and you are to be praised for offering an answer in opposition to what you thought I wanted to hear. Only when a disciple can rise in opposition to his teacher can he be truly said to be making progress.”
There is also another reason I stand alone, separate from my fellow Buddhists. The Buddha himself claimed the Lotus Sutra to be his highest teaching and within that text, defines proper Buddhist practice. Which is to “read, recite, embrace, ponder, and propagate this Lotus Sutra.” And this I do, even though the likes of the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh do not – which makes them heretics who behave contrary to the Buddha’s expectations.
[Please stop gasping…just because a religious figure is famous and has a following, doesn’t make him right.]
To be sure, in many walks of life, among many well-intentioned people are those who do not or will not see what is before their very eyes. And there are others who are blatantly dishonest, thinking they serve higher ends with such behavior. We cannot usher in an Age of Wisdom when such attitudes are so prevalent. Any movement toward this Age can only start with initiatives such as open-ended dialogue among the young, addressing the question: What does it mean to be human?
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I’m sure their moms thought highly of them, but the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh are heretics, nonetheless.”
No comments:
Post a Comment